ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Israel

David Taylor: What assessment he has made of the implications of the outcome of the general election in Israel for UK policy in the region; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: The composition of the next Israeli Government is not yet clear. However, at the earliest opportunity, the UK will engage with Israel's new Government on the important task of reinvigorating a serious political dialogue aimed at establishing a lasting and just regional peace between Israel and its neighbours. Working with and supporting all parties in their efforts to reach that goal will remain a central tenet of the UK's policy in the region.

David Taylor: With right-wing religious nationalists now vying for control of the Knesset, there appears to be little prospect of peace for the families and friends of the 1,300 Gazans killed and 5,500 injured by Israeli military operations before and during the recent general election campaign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel can no longer be accepted by our Government or the international community as justification for the Israeli Government's criminal actions in the slaughter and maiming of innocent Palestinian citizens?

David Miliband: I think that the prospects for peace probably seem very remote for a large number of people in the middle east, which is a reason for us to redouble our efforts to secure that peace. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is very important that we condemn all loss of innocent civilian life on any side. We should not get into the business of justifying one set of civilian losses because of another. A vital part of our work and, critically, the work of the new US Administration, is to try to build a durable peace that is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Anthony Steen: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Israel is one of the most advanced countries in the world in tackling human trafficking? The number of convictions of traffickers is up and the amount of compensation paid to victims and the amount of legislation on the statute book are increasing. Will he take a lead from the Israeli Government and see that all embassies with which we have visa arrangements have leaflets explaining to people applying for visas that they should be aware of the dangers of human trafficking?

David Miliband: I was not aware of Israel's record in that regard, and I shall certainly find out our own practice in that area. The work against human trafficking brings together all civilised people, and if there is anything that we have to learn from the Israeli approach, we will certainly do so.

Andrew Slaughter: I have just come back from Gaza, where I saw whole business districts, villages, hospitals and schools that had been systematically razed to the ground by a Government of the centre left, as we are now told to call them. The prospects for progress on peace and other matters being made by a Government of the far right seem unlikely without pressure from this Government and their international partners. What does my right hon. Friend believe those pressures should be?

David Miliband: The picture that my hon. Friend paints of the situation in Gaza was confirmed to me by Senator Kerry, whom I met on Sunday and who had also recently been in Gaza. He painted a picture of extreme devastation right across Gaza. As I said, there is not yet a Government in Israel, but the most significant thing is that in the latter part of last year, we were talking in the House about the importance of the new US Administration engaging on middle east issues from day one, which has indeed happened.
	I will be in Sharm el Sheikh on Monday with Secretary Clinton at the donors conference, talking about not just the narrow issues of humanitarian aid and reconstruction but the wider political issues that are raised. I will be in Cairo later today, where I will certainly take up those wider political issues. Those are the key points that need to be on the table for any Government who emerge in Israel.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State and Mrs. Clinton, when they are together next week, make it quietly but firmly plain to those who aspire to power in Israel, first, that indiscriminate slaughter is not an acceptable instrument of policy and, secondly, that a two-state solution is the only viable solution to middle eastern problems?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of restating a commitment to a two-state solution. It is fair to say that it is an indicator of how dangerous the situation is that the mere repetition of that commitment is in itself important. At this time, it is very important to keep on the table the commitment to a two-state solution, especially by the United States, given that the division between Gaza and the west bank currently threatens the very heart of the idea of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) made the point that a Government of the centre left could not find a road to peace, and it seems likely that we will have a Government of the right in Israel shortly. The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that he, along with the international community, wishes to redouble his efforts to try to get a settlement and agreement in the region. How optimistic is he, given the clear political obstacles that the composition of the new Government presents?

David Miliband: The situation on the ground means that anyone who claims to be optimistic at the moment is not engaging with the facts. It is not an optimistic, but a dangerous moment. The dangers mean that not only European countries and the United States, but—critically—countries throughout the Arab world, as well as Israel, have to peer into the abyss of the idea of a two-state solution disappearing. That is dangerous for Israel and for the whole Arab world. It is one reason for my putting such stress in the past six months on the Arab peace initiative, which offers not only a two-state solution, but the prospect of 23 states—Israel and 22 states of the Arab League—normalising relations with each other on the back of the creation of a Palestinian state. That regional approach is essential at this time.

David Lidington: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel is entitled to insist that the Palestinians and the wider Arab world accept her right to exist? Does he also accept that, when Israeli political leaders talk about refusing to countenance a Palestinian state or make promises about expanding illegal settlements, that undercuts the position of every Arab leader who is genuinely committed to peace?

David Miliband: Yes, it is important—I hope that it is noted—that, in all parties in the House, there is an absolute commitment to the centrality of Israel at the foundation of a stable middle east and to the fact that Israel, never mind the Palestinians, will have safety and justice with the creation of a Palestinian state. It is significant that, across the United Kingdom political spectrum, every party is committed to the goal of a safe Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state in a region that benefits from that co-existence. I think that the cross-party commitment to using all Britain's assets to further that goal is widely welcomed, and it is something that I carry with me as I travel in the region.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Judy Mallaber: What representations he has made to the Governments of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the effects on civilians of the military conflict in eastern DRC.

Gillian Merron: The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa urged the Presidents of Rwanda and of the DRC to work to resolve the instability in eastern DRC when they visited the region last year. We have continually raised the protection of civilians with both Governments, directly and through the European Union and the United Nations. Those efforts, as part of international pressure, have led to real political progress.

Judy Mallaber: I thank the Minister for that answer. The current joint operation in eastern Congo is unlikely to eradicate the presence of the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda—FDLR—before the Rwandans reach the end of the time that they had allocated for that. Will my hon. Friend press the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo—MONUC—and the Congolese Government to ensure that there is a strategy in place to deal robustly with what remains of the movement? Does she agree that it is essential quickly to get the reinforcements for MONUC, which were agreed in December at the UN, to deal with the FDLR and with the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Congo, where 900 people have recently been killed?

Gillian Merron: First, I commend my hon. Friend's work in the region and her assessment of the position. I can give the reassurance that we have continued to press the DRC Government to plan for post-military action, including humanitarian work and stabilisation, in the way that she describes. As she says, MONUC is key to that, as is the DRC Government's working with MONUC and the reinforcement of MONUC troops. I understand that most of the 3,000 reinforcements have been identified, and that MONUC will soon send extra troops to northern Congo.

Robert Walter: May I press the Under-Secretary a little further on the future of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Congo? It has become clear that the MONUC force is incapable of effectively keeping the peace in eastern Congo. I understand from this morning's  Financial Times that discussions have taken place between the British and the French Governments about the future of UN peacekeeping forces, including the one in the Congo. Will the Under-Secretary give us a little more information about that?

Gillian Merron: Indeed, there are discussions at the UN about all peacekeeping operations. It is important to emphasise that a successful political process will bring peace and a decent future to the region—the problems cannot be solved by military means alone. However, the role of MONUC troops is essential and that is why we seek and support their reinforcement.

Eric Joyce: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 810, which refers to the sad death of Dr. Alison Des Forges? Dr. Des Forges met a number of hon. Members the day before she was killed a couple of weeks ago. She was unquestionably one of the world's leading authorities on the great lakes region. Will my hon. Friend join me and the House in sending her condolences to Dr. Des Forges's family?

Gillian Merron: I certainly will. I would add that perhaps the greatest tribute that we can give to somebody of such stature is to seek peace and a decent future for the DRC and, indeed, the whole region. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, both through the all-party parliamentary group and by drawing the issue to the attention of the House through his early-day motion.

Iran's Nuclear Programme

Paddy Tipping: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on Iran's nuclear programme.

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers regularly discuss Iran and its nuclear programme with our European Union counterparts. The EU has consistently been at the forefront of the international response to the Iran nuclear issue. The E3 plus 3 reaffirmed its unity and commitment on 4 February to achieving a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister ensure that those European discussions link closely with the potential of the new President of the United States, who seems to hold the possibility of a more flexible and open approach towards Iran?

Bill Rammell: We very much welcome the US Administration's willingness to engage directly with Iran, which I think is what my hon. Friend was referring to. However, no one should be in any doubt that President Obama has made it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Iran has to make a choice between, on the one hand, the very generous E3 plus 3 offer and a transformed relationship with the international community and, on the other hand, continuing on the path of confrontation, increasing isolation, and tougher and expanded sanctions.

Mark Harper: When the Secretary of State meets the US Secretary of State next week, what will he be able to tell her about what further steps the EU is going to take, given that the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran has now enriched enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon?

Bill Rammell: The US is reviewing its position with regard to Iran, and we are discussing the issue. However, as I have made clear, President Obama has made it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. We all need to work together to force Iran to confront that fundamental choice: on the one hand, engagement and all the benefits that it can bring or, on the other, increased isolation.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister not agree that this might be a good opportunity to launch the idea of a nuclear-free middle east, which would involve the non-development of nuclear weapons by any existing states in the middle east and, of course, nuclear disarmament by the only nuclear-armed state in the region, namely Israel? Does he not also agree that this year's forthcoming non-proliferation treaty preparatory committee, or prepcom, would be a good time to launch such an initiative?

Bill Rammell: I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome the fact that this country and this Government are the most forward-leaning of the nuclear weapon states in terms of disarmament. We need constantly to reiterate that. We are also very committed to a nuclear-free middle east and have consistently urged the Government of Israel to sign up to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

Douglas Hogg: The possible formation of a Government under Mr. Netanyahu is a matter of some concern in the context of the Iranian nuclear programme. Will the Minister and EU Ministers impress upon any Government headed by Mr. Netanyahu the vital importance of restraint and of working in concert with the EU countries and the United States, and that his Government should not contemplate any unilateral action?

Bill Rammell: Let me make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have consistently been 100 per cent. committed to a diplomatic solution. Nevertheless, we face a serious challenge in respect of Iran. The whole international community needs to focus Iran on the choice that it faces.

Stephen Ladyman: Carrying on doing what we are doing and expecting it to have a different outcome would seem to be folly. What we are doing now seems in no way to be slowing down the Iranian nuclear programme. If we are to avoid the accusation in two years' time that we allowed the world to drift into a nightmare, how do we and our EU partners take things to the next level in applying pressure on Iran? In particular, those in the Arab world have just as much to lose from a nuclear-armed Iran, so how do we get them to join us?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend makes an exceedingly pertinent point. In all the discussions that I have in the middle east, there is significant concern, among the Gulf states and other middle east states, about the position of Iran. We need to maximise the consensus and force Iran to face the choice that is before it. The United States Administration have rightly said that they are willing in principle to open a direct dialogue with Iran. We need to reinforce that. We also need to maximise the unity and get Iran to the point where it makes the choice that is necessary.

Mark Francois: The latest report from the IAEA states that Iran has now stockpiled more than 1,000 kg of low-enriched uranium. If Iran continues at this pace, it will be a matter not of if, but when, it actually has a nuclear weapons capability. Can the Minister therefore assure the House that the EU will now finally muster the will to impose the key sanctions that the Prime Minister first announced back in 2007 on investment in Iranian oil and gas?

Bill Rammell: The European Union, as I argued earlier, has been at the forefront of those internationally arguing for and urging sanctions. The latest IAEA report is one of real and serious concern. It underlines the reasons why we have a lack of confidence in that Iran has not responded to the IAEA report and is not allowing legitimate access. We need to keep up the argument that that is what we rightly expect Iran to do.

UK-China Relations

Denis Murphy: What assessment he has made of the provisions of the UK-China framework for engagement.

David Miliband: I launched the UK-China framework last month because the Government believe that positive engagement with China is essential to achieving our wider international objectives and to addressing the major global challenges, including the current economic crisis. We welcome the positive response from the Chinese Government to this strategy, we will monitor progress against its detailed objectives, and we will welcome the views of Members and others.

Denis Murphy: Given my right hon. Friend's rather special relationship with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, can he comment on the US's new approach to China and inform the House whether that new approach will impact in any way on the policies of the United Kingdom?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I spoke to my new friend in advance of her trip to China. I think that the messages she gave to the Chinese about the determination of the whole of the American Government to engage with China in a new way is wholly welcome. There was, I think, in Secretary Clinton's remarks in Beijing an important recognition of the changed balance of power in the world and of China's centrality to addressing many of the big global problems we face—not least economic and environmental problems and nuclear proliferation.

Willie Rennie: If we are ever to secure peace in Afghanistan, we are going to have to engage all the countries in the wider region, including China, especially if we are going to seek a final solution in that area. What discussions have the Government had with China about engaging with Iran to provide that solution?

David Miliband: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We obviously talked about Afghanistan during the visit of Premier Wen and Foreign Minister Yang at the beginning of this month. I was in Afghanistan last week. I believe that the important regional approach taken by the new envoy, Ambassador Holbrooke, is wholly welcome.

Denis MacShane: As literally millions and millions of Chinese people lose their jobs with the Chinese economy going into even freer fall than the European and American economies, there are political consequences. In my right hon. Friend's talks with the Chinese, will he gently suggest that the next economic paradigm has to be based on workers being able to earn enough to buy what they produce and to have social and other networks of support? Will he further bring into play the International Labour Organisation to urge the Chinese to develop a much fairer social and wage system in their country?

David Miliband: I think that my right hon. Friend will recognise the irony of China riding to the rescue of international capitalism at this time, but his points about the balance of economic and social stability in China are very well made. Our human rights dialogue certainly provides one opportunity to raise a whole range of social issues with the Chinese Government.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Secretary of State aware that when North Koreans try to leave that dictatorship, they often cross into China, where they are rounded up and sent back to North Korea in defiance of all China's obligations as a signatory to the UN refugee convention? The fate of these returnees to North Korea is extremely gruesome, so will the Secretary of State ensure that his new love-in with China—whether via Mrs. Clinton or anyone else—does not prevent him and the Government from raising this issue with the Chinese Government as a matter of urgency, or does he think that China is too important and large to merit such criticism?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is one that we have raised with the Chinese. I think I should write to him with a report on how those discussions have gone and what the latest stage is. The importance of our engagement with China is precisely that, because we engage with the Chinese, we are able to raise all issues, including human rights issues, openly and frankly. That spirit of candour has been developed over the past few years in our relationship with China. Respect for China does not mean the relegation of our concerns to a subsidiary role. In fact, I would argue that the respect that is afforded to China is the basis for proper engagement on issues that concern us.

Sri Lanka

Joan Ryan: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: The recent military advances by the Sri Lankan Government and the subsequent humanitarian crisis are of continuing serious concern. We have repeatedly called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We have made it clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that a political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of all communities in Sri Lanka is the only way to bring a sustainable end to the conflict.
	Our commitment to that goal and our desire to work with the Sri Lankan Government are clear in the appointment of an experienced former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), as the Prime Minister's special envoy. I remain in active discussion with the Sri Lankan Government to encourage them to work with him.

Joan Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and also welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun as special envoy to Sri Lanka, as well as the statements made in the House by members of the Government regarding ceasefire, but warm words and good intentions will not protect the civilians of the Vanni.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware that, in the last 24 hours, a ceasefire offer has been made but was rejected out of hand by the Government of Sri Lanka. The situation is grave, with 2,000 civilian deaths since January. Is not now the time for the Government to take the issue up at the highest levels—namely, at a session of the United Nations Human Rights Council or in the Security Council itself, or by seeking the suspension from the Commonwealth of the Government of Sri Lanka?

David Miliband: The situation is indeed extremely serious. For some time, the Sri Lankan authorities were offering a ceasefire and it was rejected by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Now there is news of an LTTE offer, which has been rejected by the Government. My right hon. Friend will have seen the strong conclusions reached by the European General Affairs and External Relations Council yesterday on the Sri Lankan issue, which are wholly appropriate and welcome, and she can be assured that we continue to press at the highest levels for humanitarian assistance and for a ceasefire.

Edward Davey: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why the Government have not sought a resolution of the UN Security Council for a ceasefire in Sri Lanka? Indeed, why, when Mexico recently asked for the council to be briefed on Sri Lanka, did the British representative to the UN fail to support that call? Does the Foreign Secretary realise that people get pretty angry when UK Ministers here in London talk about and call for a ceasefire, but British officials in New York do not follow through?

David Miliband: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in that way, because he knows that a failed resolution—one that faces a veto—is worse than no resolution at all, and it would strengthen precisely the forces that he and I oppose. I can assure him that our diplomats, whether in New York or in the region, are all working off the same script, which is one that has been set by the Prime Minister and me.

Mike Gapes: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the problem in the Security Council is not the UK Government, but the Russian Government, who refuse to support the Security Council resolution? Therefore, unlike in Gaza, we are unable to get the Security Council resolution that is so needed.

David Miliband: There certainly is a blockage at the UN. That is why the UN has not been able to opine on this issue.

Andrew Stunell: The Secretary of State will know that there are credible reports of atrocities on both sides. Will he assure the House that the Government will channel their energies into getting this ceasefire before more and more civilians are killed and brought into the conflict?

David Miliband: Yes. The tragedy in Sri Lanka has claimed 70,000 lives in the course of the conflict. That conflict is against the interests of all Sri Lanka's communities, which could find a way to live together if they had representation that was able to eschew violence and look for a political solution. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are using all our best efforts to achieve that. It is deeply to be regretted that the appointment of an envoy has not yet been met with a welcome in Colombo, but that is what we are working for.

Fiona Mactaggart: But will that envoy be able to help us ensure that Ban Ki-Moon's commitment to supporting a ceasefire that enables civilians to leave the hot areas in Sri Lanka can be realised? Families in Britain are anxious about relatives of whom they have heard nothing for months. We need to help them, and their relatives, to be safe.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks about this issue with knowledge and passion. She is absolutely right about the need for us to do all that we can to protect those civilians, including working with the United Nations. There are very distressing reports of both sides interfering with civilians' ability to find safety. It is at the heart of our concerns not just to try to provide money, but to try to provide space to which civilians can escape and in which they can be given proper safety. The situation is deeply distressing, not just to people in the region but to many, many people in the United Kingdom.

Elfyn Llwyd: Some of the signals coming from the Sri Lankan Government imply that they are quite prepared to go ahead with acts of genocide. Time is of the essence. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is doing what he can, but many of us are deeply worried about what is going on in Sri Lanka and, as time goes by, it is getting worse. The next fortnight may be crucial. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again about every possible avenue that might enable a horrible humanitarian catastrophe to be averted?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. Sri Lanka has a democratic Government, and—as I have said in another context—high standards are rightly expected of democratic Governments, and should be adhered to by every single Government.
	What the hon. Gentleman said about the Sri Lankan Government was absolutely right. No one denies that there is a terrorist problem in Sri Lanka. That terrorist problem poses a mortal threat to Sri Lankans in all communities, but the resolution of that terrorist problem cannot be achieved at the expense of the rights of minority communities in Sri Lanka, and that is what we are trying to work on.

Andrew Love: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), and wish him well in his discussions with the Government there.
	Human Rights Watch reported recently that 2,000 people had died and 5,000 had been injured—innocent civilians caught in the conflict. There are now reports that the so-called safe areas are no longer safe because conflict is proceeding there. I have noted the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Will he redouble his efforts to secure a humanitarian corridor that will allow innocent civilians to escape entirely from the area of conflict in the Vanni?

David Miliband: I recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done as chairman of the all-party group. We will certainly explore all options for the provision of civilian safety, including a ceasefire, a humanitarian corridor and humanitarian safe zones. The situation does indeed get worse day by day. The stories that emerge are of extreme cruelty—cruelty, I have to say, on both sides—and it is very important for the international community to work on the issue. The unanimity of the European Union's response yesterday is an important indication that the issue is rightly becoming higher on the international agenda.

Keith Simpson: Obviously we all wish the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) great success. However, is it not the case that after the Prime Minister had announced the right hon. Gentleman's appointment, the Sri Lankan Government made it clear that they had not been consulted and that they found the whole thing extremely objectionable, and is it not the case that, on Wednesday 18 February, the Sri Lankan Cabinet met and refused to withdraw its opposition to the right hon. Gentleman's appointment? If that is so, it must mean either that the right hon. Gentleman personally is unacceptable—which I would find strange—or that a special envoy from the United Kingdom is unacceptable and will therefore be in permanent limbo.

David Miliband: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken the position that he has, because following a letter from our Prime Minister to the President of Sri Lanka, I spoke to the President of Sri Lanka on 30 January—a long time before the date the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and President Rajapakse said he would engage with a UK envoy. Two meetings between our high commissioner and the President confirmed that position, so it is important that we do not leave on the record the suggestion that there was not consultation. There was, indeed, consultation on this issue, and that is why we are working hard to explain to the Sri Lankan Government not only the virtues of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but the potential benefit of a UK envoy, joining envoys from Japan, Norway and other countries, playing a positive role in the conflict.

Phyllis Starkey: Among the civilian deaths in the north of Sri Lanka as a result of the Sri Lankan Government's military action are 11 relatives of a member of the Milton Keynes Tamil Forum. What she wants to know is what justice there will be for her relatives killed in that action. Can the Foreign Secretary offer any hope of justice?

David Miliband: The constituent my hon. Friend mentions has lost 11 relatives, and it is impossible from this Dispatch Box to say anything that will give someone in such a situation, at a time of such huge distress, any sense of real comfort. She is among a large number of people in this country who have lost large numbers of relatives in this terrible conflict. I can assure her and every person who has Sri Lankan heritage or relatives in Sri Lanka that their Government in the UK are working very hard, internationally and bilaterally, on the issue. There are responsibilities on the LTTE, but there are also responsibilities on the Sri Lankan Government, and both need to fulfil them.

Democratic Republic of Congo

James Duddridge: What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Gillian Merron: The DRC and its neighbours are co-operating constructively on regional security. The Government have begun work on areas such as security sector reform and development, and the national Parliament is increasingly effective in holding the Government to account. However, much work remains to be done to achieve the lasting progress that we all want to see.

James Duddridge: In addition to looking at increasing UN troop numbers, which the Minister mentioned earlier, will she also look at the effectiveness of those troops, particularly given UN commander Bipin Rawat's comments that he can only get munitions delivered 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, not at the weekends, and that there is no capacity whatever for night flights?

Gillian Merron: Of course, this is a matter for the UN, and we will discuss it there. The MONUC team is available to the DRC and Rwandan armies to help them with their military planning, and I would encourage them to make full use of that, because what we want to see is the MONUC troops carrying out the highest priority, which is civilian protection.

Mary Creagh: Developing the justice sector is key to creating political stability in the DRC. We were all delighted to see the arrest of Laurent Nkunda, the warlord who ran CNDP criminals in north Kivu, over Christmas, but what conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Governments of Rwanda and the DRC to ensure that Laurent Nkunda returns to the DRC to face justice for the unspeakable acts committed by him and his troops?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is right that justice not only has to be done, but has to be seen to be done, and matters such as those are raised regularly both directly with the Governments and through the UN and EU.

Philip Hollobone: Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that 3,000 extra troops will be enough?

Gillian Merron: That is the estimate that has been made, and, indeed, the UK has supported the United Nations security resolution that brought about that extra reinforcement. What matters is that those reinforcements arrive as soon as possible, that they get on with the job that they are there to do, and that they assist the Rwandan and DRC Governments to protect civilians and to bring about a lasting peace. However, as I said earlier, that cannot be done only by military means. It has to be done through a political process. There has been progress, and we will continue to support that.

Gaza

Linda Riordan: What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on peacekeeping initiatives for the Gaza strip.

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary and I this morning met special envoy Mitchell to discuss Gaza and the middle east. We reiterated the UK's determination to support the ceasefire, both by helping to stop arms smuggling into Gaza and by pressing the Israeli Government to open the crossings. The Foreign Secretary will be leading the UK delegation to the Gaza reconstruction conference in Egypt on Monday.

Linda Riordan: When I recently visited Palestine with the Halifax Friends of Palestine group I saw for myself the atrocities being committed against the people there; day after day, they are terrorised, homes are demolished, concrete walls are built, which prevent children from going to school, and innocent lives are lost. Will the Minister reassure me that he is doing everything he can, working with his international counterparts, to protect the Palestinians and their land, and to find a swift and peaceful solution?

Bill Rammell: I say to my hon. Friend, who takes a real interest in these issues, that there has clearly been an unacceptable loss of innocent civilian life. The reality is that we have been at the forefront of efforts to press for a ceasefire, including by leading the way at the United Nations Security Council. We are strongly supporting efforts to stop arms smuggling into Gaza and we are strongly pressing the Israeli Government to open the crossings. However, peace will ultimately be secured by the actions of Hamas, on the one hand, and the Government of Israel, on the other.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that Hamas continues to store arms in schools, mosques and civilian areas? The arms are clearly still getting through. Does not the international community have a role to play in stopping things being smuggled from Egypt and in assisting the Egyptian authorities in ensuring that the tunnels are maintained?  [Interruption.]

Bill Rammell: I get the point. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that unless we tackle both sides of this, we will not get the security and the peaceful solution that people seek. That is why we, in concert with other international partners, are doing everything possible to support the Egyptian efforts to tackle smuggling across the borders. We have also, in our own right, made an offer of naval assistance, and that, too, might be able to make a contribution.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend has indicated that the Government will pursue, with vigour, the interception of arms going into Gaza—such arms could threaten Israeli civilians. Could he say precisely what action is being taken to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians from Israeli attack?

Bill Rammell: We led the way at the UN Security Council to obtain the ceasefire that has been achieved, fragile though it is, and we have consistently made it abundantly clear that there has been an unacceptable loss of innocent civilian life and that that has to stop. We need to provide security, not only for the Palestinians, but for the Israelis in southern Israel.

Sarah Teather: I have just returned from an all-party group visit to Gaza, where we witnessed the aftermath of the total destruction of the village of Izbit Abed Rabbo, east of Jabalia, and the consequences of white phosphorus attacks on a children's centre and music school. In his statement to the House on 12 January, the Foreign Secretary said that he wanted to see an investigation into such abuses. What are the Government doing to ensure that such an investigation takes place?

Bill Rammell: We have made our view clear and we have also supported the UN Secretary-General's calls for such investigations into abuses of international humanitarian law. We are certainly concerned about reports on the way in which white phosphorus ammunition has been used in Gaza, and we have made our concerns abundantly clear to the Government of Israel.

Sharon Hodgson: In light of a report published by Amnesty International on 10 February detailing extra-judicial executions carried out by Hamas, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need for the Palestinian Authority to have a presence in Gaza in order to restore the rule of law?

Bill Rammell: I agree with my hon. Friend. President Abbas is the elected leader of all Palestinians, and I very much hope that next week's reconstruction conference in Egypt will be able to discuss, among other things, in what way the Palestinian Authority can be involved in the reconstruction of Gaza.

UK-Pakistan Relations

Paul Goodman: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Pakistan on UK-Pakistan relations.

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with members of the Pakistani Government and spoke most recently with President Zardari on 9 February and with Foreign Minister Qureshi on 7 February. He discussed a wide range of common issues, including the Mumbai attacks, Afghanistan and counter-terrorism.

Paul Goodman: We are, of course, aware that the Foreign Secretary recently raised Kashmir with the Government of India, and presume that he also did so with the Government of Pakistan. Is it the Government's view that a solution in Kashmir is integral to a wider solution in the region as a whole, and does the Minister agree that—in some way and at some time—the people of Kashmir must be involved in any discussions about what is, after all, their future?

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that our position on Kashmir has not changed. The key priority at the moment is for the Government of Pakistan to act on Lashkar-e-Taiba. That is what we are arguing for both publicly and privately.

Diane Abbott: Does the Minister agree that some of the sources of instability in Afghanistan lie in Pakistan, including activities on the north-west frontier and the recruiting and training of young Taliban in Pakistani madrassahs? Have those matters been broached with the Pakistan Government?

Bill Rammell: Yes, there are clearly issues that are of mutual interest between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The increasingly close relationship between the Governments of those two countries is a source of optimism, and we raise those issues with them regularly.

Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that the stability of Pakistan is vital for any progress to be made in that region of the world? If I may pick up on the question put by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), what happens in Pakistan will impact directly on Afghanistan. What hope can the Minister give the House that his discussions with his opposite numbers are progressive, and will contribute to the peace and stability of the region?

Bill Rammell: It is absolutely our intention to ensure that we do everything that we can to make progress on these issues. It is not within our gift to make that happen, but we are certainly working to that end. Counter-terrorism is a key aspect of our relationship with Pakistan, which is one of our key allies. We will keep working on these issues with Pakistan, in both our interests and those of the whole international community.

Falkland Islands (Transport Links)

Eric Illsley: If he will take steps to improve transport links to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

Gillian Merron: Negotiations between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence on new terms and conditions for improved civilian use of the south Atlantic air bridge are expected to be concluded shortly. The MOD has already provided a premium economy service, increased the frequency of the flights to twice a week, and given the Falkland Islands Government the number of aircraft seats they requested.

Eric Illsley: Will my hon. Friend look again at the matter, together with colleagues from the MOD, to ensure that the child concession, which was removed from the air bridge policy, is reinstated so that people from the Falkland Islands can maintain their close links with this country?

Gillian Merron: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is probably worth saying that the MOD is charging on a full cost recovery basis, which is consistent with Treasury rules, as he will know. The Falkland Islands Government have the flexibility to take their own decisions about fares and discounts that they offer to their passengers. No doubt they will consider that matter further.

Topical Questions

Robert Flello: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Miliband: Today I met with Senator Mitchell to discuss prospects for renewed talks on the future of the middle east. Straight after questions I will travel to Cairo for talks with President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit. In the aftermath of the Gaza war, peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians depends, as ever, on their ability to live side by side. It is now a top priority for the US Administration, and we will do everything in our power to support their efforts.

Robert Flello: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what contribution the proposed eastern partnership might make to improving the security of our energy supply and, in the long run, to bringing down the cost of fuel for families and businesses in Britain?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. The proposed eastern partnership will engage countries, including Ukraine, which has been in the press most recently, in a strategic discussion about energy security and will help us to secure those dependable supplies. Although Britain does not get any of its energy supplies directly from the eastern partnership countries, insecurity impacts on market prices in the UK, which then has an impact on the prices for families and businesses. That is why it is so important that we engage and are seen to be positive in that engagement, unlike the Conservative party, which chooses not to engage constructively on the European Union.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary has made a written statement today on the Binyam Mohamed case. I think that he will agree that the importance of the case is that this country must make it clear that we do not condone or connive in the torture of suspects. Does that not suggest that we should be as transparent as possible in all circumstances? Since the Government's adviser on terrorism laws, Lord Carlile, has said:
	"There is a basis for the UK government to urge the American government that these matters which are of true public interest...should be made public in a way that does not damage...national security",
	will the Foreign Secretary now reconsider his refusal even to ask the US Government for permission to publish the material that the High Court had to withhold?

David Miliband: Across the House and across the Government, we unreservedly condemn the use of torture. Significantly, any allegations are immediately investigated, as has happened in this case—

Andrew MacKinlay: By whom?

David Miliband: By the Attorney-General, who is the independent Minister for justice and is the right person to assess whether there has been any criminal wrongdoing. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is right to say that transparency is important. That is one reason why we argued so strongly that the US Government should give the relevant documents to Binyam Mohamed's legal team. It is because of those "strenuous efforts", in the words of the Court, that he has now been released from Guantanamo Bay.
	In respect of the decision by the US on the release of the documents, it is not a question of our having permission to release the documents but a question of the Americans deciding whether they should release their own documents. We have made it absolutely clear to the US Administration, most recently in a visit by the senior legal adviser of the Foreign Office to Washington about 10 days ago, that we have absolutely no objection to the release of the documents. The Attorney-General of the US has said that the Americans will review all cases of confidentiality against their national security criteria, and that is right, but our position is absolutely clear. As I said in the House two and a half weeks ago, there is nothing in the contents of the documents that causes us to say that they should be kept secret.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary has progressed from saying three weeks ago that he would not go on a lobbying campaign with the US Government about this matter to having no objection to the release of the documents by the US. I am simply asking him to go one step further and to suggest to the US that that is what should be done. The view of the Government's adviser is that this material should be published and the view of the High Court was that nothing in the relevant paragraphs could be
	"described as 'highly sensitive classified...intelligence'"
	and that they should be published. The view of a senior Congressman has been that the secrecy would leave a
	"cloud that would haunt both countries".
	The US is in any case reviewing its assertion of state privilege in the courts in every case, as the Foreign Secretary has said, so would it not now be sensible to ask the US to change its approach to the case, to underline our joint commitment to dealing with allegations of torture and to avoid the charges of cover-up that are now flung about?

David Miliband: As I said earlier, far from suppressing documents, it was the action of the Government that got the documents to the defence counsel in this case. The new Administration in the US, in contrast to the previous Administration, have announced that they will review all cases where the confidentiality requirements have been used. A large number—about 240—of legal cases in the US are relevant. I think that it is right that we should make it clear that we have absolutely no objection to the release of those documents. There is nothing in the documents that we think should not be released. It has been discussed in Washington, rightly, and it is now for the US to go through each of the documents and decide whether to release them.

David Hamilton: Climate change is top of the agenda throughout the world. The next time that my right hon. Friend has discussions with China, could he ensure that clean coal technology is top of the agenda? There are more than 1 million miners in China. They are producing CO2 emissions continuously. Would it be possible for him and his wee brother to have a discussion with their opposite numbers to ensure that we get a clean coal technology solution, which will be good for the world?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—sometimes known by other names—will travel to China with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in April, precisely to take forward this issue. My hon. Friend will know that China is building between four and seven—estimates vary—new coal-fired power plants a week. If those coal-fired plants are not equipped with carbon capture and storage technology, the consequences for climate change and the environment of the planet are very grave indeed.

John Barrett: The Foreign Secretary may have seen the recent report from Amnesty International that details the use of white phosphorous artillery shells by the Israeli army against civilians in the recent offensive in Gaza. What action will he and the Government take as a result of those actions?

Bill Rammell: It is still unclear exactly what took place and what weapons and munitions were used. We are assessing the situation. The current and recent activities of the Israeli defence force will be taken account of in any future arms export applications, and the Amnesty International report is a helpful contribution to the report that we are compiling.

Chris Ruane: The EU is perhaps the biggest trading bloc in the world; it has a population of approaching 500 million. Can the Minister assure the House that the EU is using that economic muscle to develop positive policies to help in the current economic climate?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend quite rightly draws attention to the EU's importance as a market. When more than half the investment into the United Kingdom comes from other EU countries and contributes to 10 per cent. of our work force, we all realise how important the EU is. Today, the EU must act to shape the global agenda, and that is why, ahead of the London summit on 2 April, it will be working across the member states not only to consider what more can be done to stabilise financial markets and to stimulate our economies, but to look to the future and how to create jobs, particularly green jobs, to ensure that our children and their children have a prosperous future.

David Davis: The Foreign Secretary's statement today on Binyam Mohamed made it very plain that intelligence information about Mr. Mohamed given by the United States Government to the United Kingdom Government could not be passed on to a third party without the permission of the US Government. It now transpires that intelligence information about Mr. Mohamed was passed from the UK Government to the US Government and then passed on to the Moroccan Government. Was that done with or without the permission of the British Government?

David Miliband: The point that I made in my statement is not exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said. The point is not about the passing to a third party, although I will address that point; the point about the issue in the statement is that justice did not require the publication of those documents by an English court against the wishes of the American Government. That is a separate issue, and the issue at hand is whether the United States authorities should decide to publish in the open those documents for public consumption. As far as justice for Mr. Mohamed is concerned, they were got to his defence counsel. In respect of all questions in relation to the allegation that British questions were used against Mr. Mohamed or for Mr. Mohamed—even information used in formulating questions—those are precisely the matters that are being addressed by the Attorney-General at the moment. It is right that we wait for her inquiry into whether there has been criminal wrongdoing to be concluded, and then we can debate them at length.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House should know as quickly as possible whether the person who returned to the UK yesterday was tortured and, if so, whether it was with the knowledge and support of British officials? Indeed, if the latter were the case, it would be a disgrace and those responsible should be brought to justice. When will the Attorney-General report? I understand that this has been with her since last October.

David Miliband: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that this country rightly has very high standards. We unreservedly condemn torture. We never collude or co-operate with torture, and where there are any allegations, we take them extremely seriously and ensure that they are independently investigated. The precise point about an independent investigation by the Attorney-General is that I do not tell her when to come to conclusions. It must be right that the Attorney General, with the Director of Public Prosecutions, should be able to conclude her inquiries. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right: in general, everybody wants that to happen as soon as possible. However, it must be for the Attorney-General to set her own timetable.

Christopher Chope: My Bill, the European Union (Audit of Benefits and Costs of UK Membership) Bill, is due for Second Reading this Friday. It is warmly supported by my party's Front Benchers, and by the Liberal Democrats. Why do the Government not support that essential tool of democracy and accountability?

Caroline Flint: I look forward to debating the hon. Gentleman's Bill, should we make progress on Friday. We are happy to debate the costs and benefits of European Union membership, but we do not see the need for the expense or bureaucracy of a commission that would do that. There is plenty of material—more than most people want in a lifetime—available on the costs and benefits of EU membership. Also, we should not see our EU membership only in terms of economic costs and benefits, important though they are; it is also about the security that the EU gives us, and the peace that it has provided for us over many years.

Ben Chapman: Does the Secretary of State accept that a fair and just settlement in the middle east will require the involvement of all the surrounding Arab states, especially in relation to the benefits for Israel? What will he do, in his upcoming visit to Cairo, to advance the cause of the Arab peace initiative?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a very important point; in the end, the Arab states are vital to giving security to Israel, and vital to supporting a future Palestinian state. As I said earlier, a regional solution must be pursued in the middle east—a so-called 23-state solution, not simply a two-state solution. Certainly, that is what the UK Government argue strongly, not just with Egyptian colleagues, whom I will meet soon, but across the region.

Norman Baker: The Government recently changed their long-held historical position on Tibet. They gave the Chinese authorities what they wanted in respect of Tibet, but appeared to secure no concessions in return. Will the Foreign Secretary and his team accept that it is important to make progress in that country? Chinese assurances are not sufficient; we need proper action, including proper access for the Red Cross and others to what is happening in a very difficult situation.

Bill Rammell: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a real interest in the issue, that it is right that we press the Chinese authorities. The Prime Minister raised the issue of Tibet in a recent state visit. When I was in Beijing a couple of weeks ago, I had detailed discussions about Tibet with the lead negotiator on the Chinese side. I strongly argued that there needs to be a settlement that is negotiated with the representatives of the Dalai Lama. That is our position, and we will continue to argue it strongly.

Kerry McCarthy: I have just returned from taking part in an excellent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Zambia, in which Zambian parliamentarians made clear to me the importance of, and the value that they place on, their role as members of the Commonwealth. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House what attitude the British Government take towards the application of countries such as Angola and Rwanda to join the Commonwealth, and what progress is being made on that front?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is right about the Commonwealth. In its 60th year it is right that we celebrate its many achievements and look forward to the next 60 years and beyond. We are supportive of Rwanda's application. We are not aware of an application by Angola, but of course the Commonwealth is not a closed club, and we are keen to see applications where that will further support and strengthen the Commonwealth.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, and will he waste no time in opening a dialogue with him? Does he not agree that it is an absolute disgrace that Mugabe continues to imprison Movement for Democratic Change activists, as well as imprisoning, and holding without trial, one of the MDC Cabinet appointees, Roy Bennett?

David Miliband: Yes, it is welcome that Morgan Tsvangirai is now the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, but it is far from welcome that he does not yet have all the Executive powers that should go with that office. It is particularly galling that some aspects of the agreement that he signed have not been fulfilled, notably in respect of the distribution of portfolios between the parties to the agreement. The hon. Gentleman is also right to raise the case of Roy Bennett, the Deputy Agriculture Minister, and the charges that have been laid against him. We have been clear that we will not only continue our humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, but stand ready to engage in a massive reconstruction effort, but that must be on the basis of clean politics, an end to violence and an economic approach that benefits the people of Zimbabwe, rather than the cronies of Robert Mugabe.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the use of the ministerial veto under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act, in respect of minutes of two Cabinet meetings in March 2003 relating to Iraq.
	I need first to set out some background. The Freedom of Information Act has profoundly changed the relationship between citizens, and their elected representatives and the media on the one hand, and the Government and public authorities on the other. It has, as intended, made the Executive far more open and accountable. The Act provides a regime for freedom of information which is one of the most open and rigorous in the world.
	The Act was the subject of almost three years' intensive debate, by which the original scheme of the Bill was much improved and strengthened. As initially proposed, decisions of the Information Commissioner would in law have been heavily persuasive, but not binding on Ministers. This reflected the regimes in other countries, such as Canada. In the event, however, that scheme was replaced by a much tougher one.
	There was, however, a key balancing measure written into the Act, and accepted by Parliament. This was to provide, in section 53, that in specific circumstances Ministers and certain others could override a decision of the commissioner or tribunal requiring the release of information, if they believed on reasonable grounds that the decision to withhold the information was in accordance with the requirements of the Act. At the time of the passage of the Bill, Ministers in both Houses provided reassurance about the use of this veto. It would not be commonplace. Undertakings were also given that, although section 53 required and requires a certificate by a single Cabinet Minister or Law Officer, any use of the veto would be subject to prior Cabinet consideration.
	The Act came into force on 1 January 2005. From then until September 2008, in approximately 78,000 cases where the requested information was held by Government Departments, it has been released in full. Before the Act, some of it would not have been released for 30 years. Since 2006, the Information Commissioner has dealt with more than 1,500 cases involving Government Departments, and the Information Tribunal has dealt with more than 50 such cases. But no section 53 veto has been used to date.
	In December 2006, the Cabinet Office received a freedom of information request for Cabinet minutes and records relating to the meetings that it held between 7 and 17 March 2003, where the Attorney-General's legal advice concerning military action against Iraq was considered and discussed. There were two such meetings, on 13 and 17 March. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing the Act's exemptions for information relating to policy development and ministerial communications. In keeping with its statutory obligations, the Cabinet Office had considered the public interest in releasing the information, but found twice, on balance, that there was a greater public interest in withholding it.
	The applicant duly exercised his right to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate the handling of his request. In February 2008 the commissioner reasoned, for the first time, that Cabinet minutes—these ones—should be released. The Cabinet Office appealed the commissioner's decision to the Information Tribunal.
	On 27 January 2009, the tribunal published its decision. The tribunal was unanimous in deciding that the informal notes of the Cabinet meetings should be withheld. But, by a majority of two to one, it decided that the public interest balance fell in favour of release of the minutes. It therefore upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner ordering information to be disclosed, subject to some minor redactions.
	Following that decision, and having taken the view of Cabinet, I have today issued a certificate under section 53 of the Act in an appropriate form and consistent with the Act, the effect of which is that these Cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed. The conclusion that I have reached rests on the assessment of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure. I have laid a copy of my certificate, and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision, in the Libraries of both Houses. My decision was made in accordance with the Government's policy criteria, which are annexed to my statement of reasons. Copies of these documents have been sent to the requester and are available in the Vote Office.
	To permit the commissioner's and the tribunal's view of the public interest to prevail would, in my judgment, risk serious damage to Cabinet government—an essential principle of British parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest. Cabinet is the pinnacle of the decision-making machinery of government. It is the forum in which debates on the issues of greatest significance and complexity are conducted. Whether the nation was to take military action was indisputably of the utmost seriousness. However, I disagree with the reasoning of the majority of the tribunal. In their decision, they refer to the "momentous" nature of the decision taken and to the public interest in understanding the approach to that decision and in the accountability of those who took the decision. They then say:
	"In the view of the majority"—
	of the tribunal—
	"the questions and concerns that remain about the quite exceptional circumstances of the two relevant meetings create a very strong case in favour of the formal records being disclosed."
	But in my judgment, that analysis is not correct. The convention of Cabinet confidentiality and the public interest in its maintenance are especially crucial when the issues at hand are of the greatest importance and sensitivity. Indeed, the minority view of the tribunal—that the minutes should be withheld—was formulated on this basis. It stated:
	"The minority view seeks to reach the decision most likely to support continued confidence that Cabinets can explore difficult issues in full and in private".
	It continued:
	"publication would, in the minority view, be more likely than not to drive substantive collective discussion or airing of disagreement into informal channels and away from the record. This would over time damage the ability of historians and any inquiries, if constituted, to reconstruct and understand the process Cabinet followed in any particular instance. And it would not be conducive to good government."
	Responsibility for Cabinet decisions is with the Government as a whole, not with individual Ministers; that remains the first principle of the ministerial code. The conventions of Cabinet confidentiality and of collective responsibility do not exist as a convenience for Ministers. They are crucial to the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and to the people.
	The concomitant of collective responsibility is that debate is conducted confidentially. Confidentiality serves to promote thorough decision making. Disclosure of the Cabinet minutes in this case jeopardises that space for thought and debate at precisely the point where it has its greatest utility. In short, the damage that disclosure of the minutes in this instance would do far outweighs any corresponding public interest in their disclosure.
	What the minutes principally record is the deliberations of Cabinet in reaching its decisions. The actual decision that was made at the later Cabinet, on 17 March, was made public straight away, when I as Foreign Secretary conveyed it to the House in an oral statement within three hours of the Cabinet coming to that conclusion. In that statement, I recounted the recent history leading up to Cabinet's decision, and I brought to the House's attention the information that had that day been made available to the House, in order better to inform the following day's debate.
	Despite the powers under the royal prerogative, we put the use of force to a debate on a substantive motion the next day. In opening that debate, our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spelt out in considerable detail the reasons for the Cabinet's decision. The debate ranged across the history of non-compliance of Saddam's regime, the negotiating history of the two UN resolutions in the run-up to military action, our discussions with allies, and much else besides. I ended that debate by fully setting out the factors that the Government and Parliament had considered and should bear in mind in voting on the substantive motion before them.
	The Government subsequently released the Attorney-General's legal advice. Furthermore, on 25 May 2006 a full disclosure statement was published by the then Attorney-General which set out in considerable detail the considerations taken into account as he reached his opinion on the legality of military action.
	A number of inquiries have been conducted. There was the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, and there was the Butler review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Both those inquiries published detailed reports on aspects of the decision to take military action, and we have acted on their recommendations. There has been yet more scrutiny of the decision by Parliament itself, including by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which published its report on weapons of mass destruction, and both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee have investigated the matter on a number of occasions.
	In summary, the decision to take military action has been examined with a fine-toothed comb; we have been held to account for it in this House and elsewhere. We have done much to meet the public interest in openness and accountability. But the duty to advance that interest further cannot supplant the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system of government. The decision to exercise the veto has been subject to much thought, and it will doubtless—and rightly so—be the object of much scrutiny. I have not taken it lightly, but it is a necessary decision to protect the public interest in effective Cabinet government.
	Shortly after he became Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-level inquiry into the 30-year rule under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Dacre of the  Daily Mail. That report, published last month, proposed a reduction from 30 to 15 years of the time after which Cabinet minutes and other papers would automatically be released. I have already told the House that the Government favour a substantial reduction in the 30-year limit. In that context, the report also recommended that we consider protection under the Act for certain categories of information.
	There is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our system of democratic government. This tension is recognised in the fundamental framework of the Freedom of Information Act—and that Act, and much else that we have done, stand testament to the far greater openness and accountability secured under this Government. I commend my statement to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I first thank the Secretary of State for giving me prior sight of his statement.
	The Secretary of State's decision to use his powers of veto in this case classically illustrates what has been wrong with the Government's approach to freedom of information and good governance generally. The public have had their expectations about openness raised by Labour's spin and propaganda, only to be brought down to earth by the intrusion of the realities of government. Meanwhile, the inquiry that ought to take place into the origins of the Iraq war has been denied them.
	May I first ask the Secretary of State whether there are any circumstances in which this decision of his might be further challenged in the courts?
	One must have some sympathy for the Secretary of State. He was, after all, the architect of the Freedom of Information Act, which he is now trying to circumvent. As Foreign Secretary, he was a party to the decision to go to war. Indeed, he was the man who introduced the veto that he now intends to use. Does he recall the words at that time of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), who said that that veto basically allowed the Home Secretary, as he then was,
	"to put a razor through the whole bill"?
	Does the Secretary of State appreciate how it will appear to the public for someone so closely involved in the key decisions to be now personally blocking the release of that information?
	Is it not also the case that the Government's self-righteous tone of protecting the public interest is fatally undermined by their past behaviour in releasing information—such as the Conservative Cabinet documents on the exchange rate mechanism—when it suited them, for reasons of the most blatant political advantage?
	We are talking about Cabinet minutes and issues of the utmost national interest. As the Secretary of State has told the House that any use of the veto is subject to prior Cabinet consideration and agreement, should it not in fact be for the Prime Minister to justify this decision to Parliament, instead of playing his all-too-usual Macavity role and vanishing at this deeply embarrassing moment?
	The code of practice on access to Government information introduced by the Major Government specifically and deliberately excluded minutes of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, for the very reasons that the Secretary of State sets out in the statement of reasons he placed in the Library, and which plainly extend to all Cabinet minutes in general. Given what the Secretary of State has resorted to today, would it not be sensible to reintroduce that rule? In view of the principles that he has enunciated on the need for confidentiality at the heart of government, why did he have to string the applicant along through an internal review, an appeal to the Information Commissioner and a counter-appeal to the Information Tribunal—all at considerable public and private expense—when it was plainly a foregone conclusion that the Government would block the release of the information anyway? When did the Secretary of State take the decision that he would exercise the veto? Will he tell the House today what this entire process has cost?
	The Secretary of State seeks to extol the Government's good intentions by highlighting their changes to the 30-year rule. Why did the Prime Minister hold a review of the 30-year rule, if not to get the records available for public inspection more swiftly than is currently the case? Did he do so because he hoped that that review would conclude that the limit should be set so that the papers of the Conservative Government would be affected, while the background to the Prime Minister's own decisions as Chancellor would remain concealed?
	We accept, however, that the Secretary of State's decision is the right one— [ Interruption . ] Yes, indeed. I am forced to disagree with the Information Commissioner when he says that such requests will have little impact because they will be rare. Quite the opposite. Because Ministers will not know in advance whether it will be deemed in the public interest to release their discussions, all discussions will be treated as though they could be released. It is clear from the Secretary of State's statement that he agrees that if that were the case, officials would feel unable to give impartial advice freely, and Ministers would feel unable to discuss matters candidly, which would lead to even more sofa government than we have already suffered from him and his colleagues. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State when this damascene conversion by him, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to those high principles of collective responsibility first took place? With the spin and briefings still going on today, none of us have noticed it.
	Finally, does the Secretary of State agree with Lord Butler of Brockwell, when he found that in the case of the Iraq war,
	"wider collective discussion and consideration by the Cabinet"
	was limited
	"to the frequent but unscripted occasions when the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary briefed the Cabinet orally",
	that
	"Excellent quality papers were written by officials, but these were not discussed in Cabinet or in Cabinet committee"
	and that
	"The absence of papers on the Cabinet agenda so that ministers could obtain briefings in advance from the Cabinet Office, their own departments or from the intelligence agencies plainly reduced their ability to prepare for such discussions"?
	Do not those issues go to the heart of public disquiet over the way in which the Iraq war was initiated?
	While we believe that it is right for Cabinet minutes to remain confidential for reasons of maintaining candour in government, that does not mean that the decision to go to war does not deserve scrutiny. The Secretary of State half concedes that point when he tries to gloss and explain that certain inquiries have already taken place. In the absence of the release of Cabinet minutes, is there not now an overwhelming case for an inquiry along the lines of that held into the Falklands war? When will the Government face up to their responsibilities in this regard, and stop hiding from their failures?

Jack Straw: As the hon. and learned Gentleman blustered, I assumed that at some stage he would get to the point where he expressed agreement, not disagreement, with the issue of my certificate. Perhaps I should have said in my opening statement that we have been grateful for the bipartisan support we have had from senior and distinguished Conservatives, including Lord Hurd of Westwell, who gave evidence to the tribunal, Lord Heseltine and, quite separately, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tries to make play of the fact that I was the architect of the Freedom of Information Act, and said that I was now trying to circumvent it. No, I am not trying to circumvent it; I am trying to apply an essential component of it. The Government would never have agreed to the Act, and would have invited the House to vote against the Bill, had it not been for the inclusion of section 53. I see one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues on the Benches behind him nodding in assent at that.
	The Act was intended to secure a better balance between openness and the protection of some information that is essential to the operation of good government and other matters, and it was intended that that tension should be reflected in the Act itself. This is not a simple matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, despite his desire—not all that successful—to have it both ways in his bluster. Section 53 is in place precisely to express that tension and to ensure that in certain circumstances, which are very clearly set out, it is possible for a particular Minister to exercise a veto in appropriate and specified cases.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the Prime Minister is not giving this statement. It is a matter of the construction and drafting of all sorts of legislation that decisions of this kind are made by Secretaries of State or Law Officers, not by the Prime Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why it was I who made the decision. I made it because it falls under my responsibilities, and I would have been accused of ducking it if I had not. It was also subject to deliberation in Cabinet. He asked me when I finally came to my decision. It was yesterday afternoon, after the final Cabinet discussion of the matter. He asked me what right of appeal there would be. There is no direct right of appeal prescribed in the Act, but it is perfectly possible that some interested party may attempt to secure a judicial review of the decision.
	On the issue of an inquiry into aspects of the military action in Iraq and its consequences, as I said, there have already been at least four inquiries. I am well aware that the Prime Minister is on record as saying that once the troops are home he will consider the case for a further inquiry, but, with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is not and cannot be germane to this decision. Any inquiry established would certainly not be under freedom of information rules.

Stuart Bell: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Freedom of Information Act is not to be used like Wikipedia, which people can add to and subtract from, and to which any fraudster can introduce themselves and distort the record? Will he reconfirm what he has just said—that 78,000 documents have been released under the Act? Is it not in accordance with our constitution, going back to Bagehot and others, that we have Cabinet Government and an Executive accountable to this House? If this House is not holding the Executive to account, it is this House that fails, and it does not need any Freedom of Information Act to fulfil its duties.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend in both respects. The Freedom of Information Act is a package deal. The House would not have been able to have the first establishment of the right of direct access to information without there being some concomitant balancing measure such as section 53. I think that that the House will confirm that, as this is the first time that that section has been exercised in more than four years of the Act being in force, we have kept our word and ensured that its use is exceptional.
	The figure of 78,000 that I referred to was the number of requests, so that will cover many more than 78,000 documents. All those requests have been accepted by Government Departments without demur or argument. In the other 1,500 cases that have been before the commissioner, and the 50 before the tribunal, the decision has been accepted in each case as final, however much the Government might have objected to it in the first place. That is the position, and I am proud that we have ensured that freedom of information is subject to a far more open regime than existed under the previous Administration.

David Howarth: I also thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. I am fascinated that the coalition that supported the Iraq war seems still to exist in the House. The decision to go to war in Iraq was momentous, controversial and disastrous. It was especially disastrous for the rule of international law and for this country's reputation as an upholder of international law. It marks the point when the Government decisively endorsed the destructive doctrines of military neo-conservatism.
	The Secretary of State says that various inquiries have been held into the Iraq war, but, as the current Foreign Secretary conceded last March, they were all narrow and specific. There has never been a full, comprehensive inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq. Will the Secretary of State give his full support for an inquiry, not as and when the Prime Minister decides, but now? We need to learn the lessons of that time as quickly as possible. That is why the Cabinet minutes should be released much earlier than normal.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that the much greater threat to Cabinet government is not the release of the minutes, but any repeat of the collapse of Cabinet decision making in the Government of Mr. Blair? The argument against disclosure is that it might undermine full and frank discussion in Cabinet and mean that discussion will take place informally, outside the meeting. However, is not that precisely what happened under Mr. Blair, with the rise of sofa government? At least the prospect of disclosure in exceptional circumstances—the tribunal made it clear that it is not a matter of disclosing Cabinet minutes all the time, only in exceptional circumstances—might persuade future Cabinets to remember that Cabinet discussion should matter.
	Am I right that Cabinet minutes do not generally give the names of the speakers, apart from that of the speaker who introduces the discussion? We are not considering the release of the Cabinet Secretary's notebooks. Am I also right that it is a case not of revealing who agreed and who dissented—though, in this instance, we know that from the memoirs of the dissenters—but only of knowing whether discussion and challenge of any sort took place? That is a matter of great public importance, which goes to the heart of accountability.
	The Secretary of State says that he has a good case on its merits. Why, therefore, has he chosen to issue an order—the first of its kind—rather than appealing to the High Court in the ordinary way? Why is he silencing opposition to his position by fiat instead of trying to persuade an objective court of its strength? Does not that show that, in reality, even he suspects that his position is weak, and that the decision has more to do with preventing embarrassment than protecting the system of government?

Jack Straw: Well, certainly not the latter. There have been plenty of occasions to discuss the nature of the decision to go to war. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the legal basis for the war and I have—and am happy to do so again in future—argued that the then Attorney-General, Peter Goldsmith, was entirely correct to advise that there was a lawful basis for the decision to go to war. Anybody who had months of intensive negotiation, as I had, about the line-by-line, word-by-word structure of what became resolution 1441 would know its legislative history and why we were justified in making the decision within international law.
	The Butler inquiry was extensive and, yes, it criticised some aspects of the way in which the Government had operated. I have never been a fan of so-called sofa government, since the hon. Gentleman asks. What is more, the Government led by Tony Blair and now by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted and implemented the inquiry's recommendations. However, that is not an argument for releasing the minutes for when the Cabinet was operating effectively; when it was, notwithstanding the criticisms, the final arbiter of the decision to take military action, and when it had discussed military action in not one or two, but, from recollection, 20 meetings.
	What Cabinet minutes do is record the details of the deliberations, normally without attribution to individual Ministers, but with more attribution than perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes. In any event, my judgment—and I think that this would be the judgment of anybody who had served in a Cabinet—is that the degree of detail, which is properly and essentially given in Cabinet minutes, is such that if those minutes were published, not least in respect of very important issues and discussions, they would undermine, in the manner that I have described, the whole principle and basis of collective responsibility. As I have said, that is not a convenience for Ministers, but is essential for the accountability of Ministers to the House.
	The last point that the hon. Gentleman raised was about why we had not chosen to put in an appeal under what I think is section 56 of the 2000 Act—no, section 59. The answer is this: an appeal to the High Court would arise on a point of law. There is no suggestion whatever in the structure of the Act that one should wait for an appeal to the High Court under section 59 before exercising a veto, effectively, under section 53. Under section 53, the accountable person is essentially substituting his or her judgment for the judgment made by the commissioner or the tribunal.

Tony Wright: May I say to my right hon. Friend that it must be a source of considerable regret that the veto has been used for the very first time by the Government in this case? As it happens, I agree with him on the principle—that is, on the importance of the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings. What I do not agree with him on is the application of that principle in the current case. What the case seems to turn on is not the content of Cabinet proceedings, but their conduct.
	The point of the 2000 Act was to set up an elaborate system to get an external and independent determination of where the public interest lies, through commissioner, tribunal and court—it was not to be decided by Ministers, but independently—and they have decided that there is a public interest, in this exceptional case, in knowing about the conduct of Cabinet business during that decisive period when we went to war. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend why it is appropriate in this case to substitute ministerial judgment for that external judgment. Will the effect not simply be to confirm people in the belief that there is something in that period that needs to be hidden?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend took a very close interest in the debates on the Freedom of Information Bill as it was, as he and I will recall with some affection. Indeed, it was partly thanks to his efforts that the Bill as proposed by me originally was changed and strengthened. However, he will also recall that on Report in the Commons—a very long stage—he identified what he regarded as three ingredients for what he described as a compromise veto: first, there should be a collective Cabinet decision in respect of the veto; secondly, the scope should be narrower; and thirdly, such a veto should not apply to local authorities. We have effectively complied with all three of his conditions.
	If, in the abstract, there was to be a provision for a veto, there was bound to be an occasion on which it would be used. It was put into the 2000 Act for a purpose. It has, in fact, not been used before, but it was almost inevitable that it would be used in respect of an issue that appeared to be controversial. The Government have bent over backwards, even when, in other circumstances, they believe that the commissioner or the tribunal has come to decisions that are inappropriate, to ensure full compliance with those decisions, because we are very committed to the spirit as well as to the letter of the Act. However, there was bound to be such an occasion, and in my judgment it was exactly this kind of occasion that the House and my hon. Friend had in mind when we agreed section 53.

Alan Beith: Given the strength of the tribunal's argument that this is a unique case setting no precedents, is it not particularly unconvincing for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that if the minutes were released, it would allow Ministers to demonstrate their attachment to any given policy in general, thereby absolving themselves from responsibility for decisions that they have agreed to stand by? Has the Justice Secretary not noticed that he is living in a world, and indeed a Government, where Ministers find all sorts of other ways of doing that, including on this issue?

Jack Straw: The tribunal was far less "strong"—to use the right hon. Gentleman's adjective—than he implied, as it was split 2:1. I urge him to read the minority as well as the majority judgment. Secondly, at no stage that I can recall did the tribunal say that this decision and these circumstances were unique, although it did say that they were of a very unusual nature. It said that the risk of setting a precedent for general application would be reduced, but it went on to say:
	"This is not to say that it is only in such an extreme case as the present that disclosure should be ordered."
	So, it was far from saying in practice that the case was unique.

Alan Simpson: Surely the tribunal was right to recognise that there is no more momentous a decision made by a Parliament than to take its country into a war of choice. That is what makes this issue so specific and unique. The Justice Secretary and all Members will remember that at that time, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, frequently told the House that if we only knew what he privately knew, we would understand that the threat was real, that the war was necessary and the action was legal. We had to accept as ordinary Members that we were not privy to the information that was available at a Cabinet level through private security briefings. Cannot the Justice Secretary see that exercising the veto at this point will send out precisely the opposite message that he has tried to convey to the House and that the public will believe that in refusing to clarify whether the Cabinet were among the deceivers or the deceived, nothing is being protected other than their own interests? As such, the integrity of the House is being damaged.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to consider other Back Benchers and if questions are too long, it is unfair to others.

Jack Straw: I know that my hon. Friend disagrees—and he disagreed at the time—with the decision, but it was made in good faith and communicated immediately to the House with extensive explanation as to why the Cabinet had reached it. Insofar as the intelligence aspects of the war are concerned, they were thoroughly examined by the Butler inquiry. I come back to the point that I have made this decision following discussion and deliberation in Cabinet in order to protect an essential component of our constitution.

Peter Tapsell: I was one who opposed the invasion of Iraq and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, who was Foreign Secretary before the invasion, that it would be illegal under international law to invade without a second resolution from the United Nations. But I have never been an enthusiast for the Freedom of Information Act, largely for reasons of the working of Cabinet government and collective responsibility. The extraordinary thing about this particular case is that part of the then Attorney-General's advice was made public and it has been discussed—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman actually gave some indication of what was contained in it. However, the damaging aspect of this case is that the Attorney-General of the day changed his advice between the first of those Cabinet meetings and the second and he did so under political pressure. If he did that, it was utterly disgraceful.

Jack Straw: The Attorney-General has explained how he came to that decision. His advice and his further explanation have already been available for two years. That is a further indication of the openness with which we have approached this issue.

Gordon Prentice: We need these minutes because Butler told us that the Cabinet was, in effect, dysfunctional. It did not get the papers that had been prepared by the Departments and Cabinet members did not have full knowledge of what they were being asked to decide. I ask my friend this: what is the point of having another inquiry on Iraq, as promised by the Prime Minister when our troops come home, if that inquiry does not have full access to all the Cabinet minutes and cannot take evidence on oath?

Jack Straw: Were there to be an inquiry—I have already referred to the comments made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it is almost certain that such an inquiry would indeed have access to all relevant documents, including Cabinet minutes, just as the Butler inquiry did, but that is a very different matter from whether those documents should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act—very different indeed.

John Greenway: The Justice Secretary will recall that I had the extreme pleasure of dealing with the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I well recall that we warned that this eventuality might arise. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who sits on the Front Bench, made the point that Labour Back Benchers were most critical of that aspect of the Bill.
	Putting that to one side, I, along with my hon. and learned Friend, agree that the Justice Secretary has made the right judgment, but the problem is with the legislation itself. Can I not encourage him to take advantage of the consensus that clearly exists between him and the major opposition party to put the matter right? I also reinforce the argument that the way to get at that information is through a full inquiry into the reasons to go to war in Iraq, although we must preserve the opportunity for deliberations in Cabinet to remain secret if they are to be frank and candid.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He has the benefit of being correct and also consistent about this for more than 10 years. So far as an opportunity to look at the Act is concerned, recommendation 8.8 of the Dacre review said, as I indicated in my statement, that if the minimum period for the release of documents generally was reduced, as he recommended, from 30 years to 15, but even if it came down to, say 20, there would need to be consideration of changes to the Freedom of Information Act provision in this respect. We are actively considering that. I am happy to do it in conjunction and co-operation with the Opposition.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has the Justice Secretary looked behind him to see that there are only two office holders—a Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Church Commissioner—who support him? Not a single one of his hon. Friends is here endorsing him today. Could it be that they are ashamed and embarrassed by this announcement? Will he not reflect on the fact, which really is breathtaking, that he, who clearly was one of the people who piloted this policy and persuaded us—I remember him, as it is photographed on my mind, promising that we would get the second UN resolution—should also decide that those documents should not be available? It is appalling.
	It is also a bad day for Parliament when we get synthetic anger from the Opposition, who are cosying up—the Privy Council club closing down debate and discussion on things that must be revealed.
	I bear the scars of having trusted the Prime Minister on this matter and I shall take to the grave the fact that I regret having listened to the porky pies and the stories of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Prime Minister. I shall regret it to the day I die. I should never, ever have trusted them.

Jack Straw: rose—

Andrew MacKinlay: And I never will again!

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but on the issue of whether it was correct for me to be the person who issued the certificate, I say to him that it is inevitable that, if the section 53 power is to be used in normal circumstances, a Minister may well end up in the position that I am in as the accountable Minister, having been party to a decision some years before. Of course I thought about that, but I was faced with a situation whereby if I had decided to recuse myself, although I do not think that there is an inherent conflict of interest, I would have been accused—no doubt by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—of dodging my responsibilities, so I was unwilling to do that.
	Let me also say to my hon. Friend—through you, Mr. Speaker—that the decision, though it is mine, has been made after very careful discussion by the Cabinet as a whole.

Edward Leigh: Is not the Secretary of State tilting at false windmills? He knows perfectly well that no sensible person wants to reveal all Cabinet discussions and no sensible person wants to curtail honest discussion in Cabinet, but does he not agree with the commissioner and the tribunal that this is a special case? Surely the people have a legal right to know the legal basis of a war in which up to 600,000 people have died. This whole thing stinks.
	We are not trying to curtail discussion. What we accuse the Government of is the absence of any proper discussion of the Attorney-General's statement and advice. We want to have answers now, and so do the public.

Jack Straw: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion, and it was also—although slightly more carefully put—the opinion of the majority of the tribunal. However, if the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 88 of the tribunal's decision document, he will see that the minority expressed what was essentially the view that I have taken: that
	"Exceptional cases may create an exceptional need for confidence in Cabinet confidentiality to be strong."
	Essentially, the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the more important the issue, the less significant should be Cabinet confidentiality. I do not accept that argument.

Richard Shepherd: When this provision was passed during a highly contentious debate on the Freedom of Information Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House, it was described by the then Home Secretary—the present Lord High Panjandrum—as "Executive override". We are now seeing the very heart of the defeat of what was that Bill. This is an exercise by the Executive to exclude full and proper debate on matters that go to the very heart of the public interest.
	The Secretary of State cited the second paragraph of "Reasons for Decision" in stating that this was an exceptional case. He then invoked a minority decision as justification for his action. The fact is that this "Executive override" defeats the very purpose of an informed public opinion that can make a judgment, in the public interest, on the actions of those who are given the trust of this people to govern this country.

Jack Straw: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said for one moment. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), he was very active in the debates in Committee and on Report nearly 10 years ago, and he should claim some credit for the final position of the Act. He will surely acknowledge, however, that an essential and fundamental component of that Act was a powerful commissioner and a powerful tribunal but also—yes, for use in exceptional cases—a right, under section 53, for the Secretary of State. If he looks at the report of what I said then, he will see that I said that we would not use the provision very often. Well, we certainly have not done so.

Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State has effectively said today that he is using his exceptional section 53 power to protect elected politicians who attended a Cabinet meeting. Can he confirm that he would not be able to use section 53 in respect of the release of correspondence between the then Chief of the Defence Staff and the Prime Minister, also about the legality of the war? The Chief of the Defence Staff reportedly wrote to the Prime Minister of the day seeking his assurance that British troops would not be hauled before a tribunal for war crimes if the war went ahead.

Jack Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am not going to give legal advice across the Chamber about the application of section 53. It stands there, and he can look at it.

Douglas Hogg: May I remind the Secretary of State that I was one of those who voted against war in Iraq? Indeed, I drafted a motion with the aim of securing a full inquiry. Unlike the Liberal Democratic party, Lord Smith and I were responsible for drafting the anti-war motion that Mr. Speaker selected.
	That said, however, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly right. I do not believe that Cabinet documents that reflect Cabinet discussion can be or should be disclosed. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. Where he is wrong is in withholding an early and full inquiry into the war. We are entitled to that. We need to know what happened in the lead-up to the war, we need to know why it was so badly handled, and we need to know the full extent of the legal advice. All that will come out in an inquiry, but the right hon. Gentleman is right on the narrow point: Cabinet documents should not be disclosed.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who took a different view from me in respect of the military action, for what he has said. As the House will understand, this is not the occasion for making decisions about an inquiry into aspects of the military action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this House on 18 December last year:
	"I have always said that this"—
	an inquiry—
	"is a matter that we will consider once our troops have come home. We are not in that position at present, so it is not right to open the question now. That is the course of action that the Foreign Secretary, I and others have stated to the House on many occasions."—[ Official Report, 18 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1239.]

Angus Robertson: This secrecy has absolutely nothing to do with the public interest and everything to do with the profound embarrassment of the Labour Government, which is why they are suppressing information about going to war. How ironic it is that we have a Justice Secretary making this announcement who only a few short years ago was telling us it was essential to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction when there were none. How can this culture of secrecy, and the delay of an independent inquiry, possibly restore the trust of the public?

Jack Straw: The issue of the intelligence failure has already been very well charted, including by the Butler inquiry, which had full access to Cabinet and many other documents.

Sammy Wilson: I am not a supporter of the Freedom of Information Act as currently constituted, although I do not think we should be surprised if there is a right of veto and if it is used. However, given that the then Prime Minister disclosed the thinking in the Cabinet when the decision was made, given that the legal advice was made public, and given that four inquiries were serviced with information, what is the logic behind not taking the final step of revealing the discussions in the Cabinet, if not to hide the Government's embarrassment on this issue? Does the Secretary of State not accept that if the reasons he has given to the House today are to be consistent, the logical position would be simply to have no Cabinet papers revealed?

Jack Straw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, and Cabinet documents are routinely released after 30 years, and we are committed to reducing the period following the recommendations of the Dacre report. This is nothing whatever to do with embarrassment, but it is to do with the distinction I drew in my statement between the decisions of Cabinet and the deliberations behind those decisions. In this case, the decision of Cabinet could not have been communicated to this House more quickly; as it happens, it fell to me to make a statement within two hours of the Cabinet coming to its decision on 17 March, and to explain the factors that led the Cabinet to that decision. That is very different from minutes recording the nature of the deliberations.

Ben Wallace: Is it not ironic that a Government who have for so long made a virtue of taking Cabinet decisions away from Cabinet with spin doctors in tow and undermining Cabinet responsibility have dared to come to this House today to try and uphold the sanctity of Cabinet discussions? If the principle of preserving the sanctity of Cabinet discussions is so important, which I agree with, why did the Secretary of State not exempt it entirely from the Freedom of Information Bill when it went through the House, and why is it that 99 per cent. of the time he is happy for officials and the judiciary to make decisions on freedom of information requests, but on this one occasion he has chosen to use his veto?

Jack Straw: I have already explained why, in the unusual circumstances of this case, I have decided that a section 53 certificate is appropriate. Notwithstanding all the bluster from those on the Opposition Benches, it seems to be a mechanism that has been supported in all parts of the House. As for the nature of Cabinet government, the hon. Gentleman has a very short memory. As it happens, in my 12 years of experience, Cabinet government has survived and is thriving. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find a Government where Cabinet government was rather absent, he may like to look at the history of the Thatcher Government and the role of Sir Bernard Ingham.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know the rules concerning the reporting of contingency liabilities: no contingent is allowed to proceed without examination if a Member of this House formally objects. Given that the Ministry of Defence suggests in a departmental minute dated 17 February that it is looking to increase the initial contingent liability on the defence training review project from £9.5 million to a staggering £40 million, without any ministerial statement, may I ask that it be put on the record that I am formally objecting to this MOD minute and new contingent liability?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record, and I shall leave it at that.

Andrew MacKinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have discovered that there are just two copies in existence of a Ministry of Defence departmental minute dated 17 February relating to a contingent liability of £250,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority. The minute states:
	"If, during the period of fourteen Parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this Minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a Parliamentary Question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld".
	I am raising this matter now. This sort of thing is happening too often and only two documents are being produced—it is sneaky and it has to stop.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record and, as I said previously, I shall leave it at that.

Airport Expansion (Parliamentary Approval)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No.  23)

Susan Kramer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Planning Act 2008 to require parliamentary approval for proposals for the building of new major airports and additional runways at existing major airports; and for connected purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is to allow this House, through an amendment to the Planning Act 2008, a vote—the final say—on any new major airport in England or any new runway at a major airport in England. There are three characteristics to this Bill: it is motivated by concern about climate change; it is motivated by concern about the democratic deficit and for the rights of this House, as balanced against the authority of the Executive; and it is genuinely cross-party.
	I just wish to mention the timing. My introducing this ten-minute Bill has partly been triggered by proposals for a third runway at Heathrow and the Government's decision not to allow a full debate in Government time with a vote that will matter so that this House can exercise its genuine opinion.
	However, the Bill is about far more than that. Hon. Members will know that an additional runway is proposed for Stansted airport—that issue is being addressed in the High Court today. The constraints on an additional runway at Gatwick expire in 2019, and Hochtief, one of a number of bidders for Gatwick airport, which is up for sale, has expressed its interest—other bidders probably have, too—in an additional runway at Gatwick. The Mayor of London has proposed a new estuary airport which, from the current discussion, would involve four additional runways, in addition to Heathrow, and the potential for expansion to six runways—those would be operated 24 hours a day. In addition, a number of regional airports up and down the country have proposed an expansion of their capacity—the airports at Manchester, Bristol, Bournemouth and Birmingham all have various plans to add various amounts of capacity.
	When Heathrow was debated on 28 January, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told us that it was an issue about "half" a runway. I suggest that he was being disingenuous, because this is a far broader issue. We are facing one of the biggest expansion plans for aviation capacity ever considered in this country, and we are doing so exactly when climate change is supposed to be somewhere near to the top, or at the top, of our agenda.
	May I say a word or two about climate change? This House is overwhelmingly convinced of the importance of climate change as an issue—there may be one or two hold-outs, but in every region, and across every party, this is a major issue of concern. The House has also accepted that we have only an extremely limited time in which to act. Virtually every report that we receive—whether it is on the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, the rate of melting of inland ice in Greenland or the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted—suggests that the past scenarios have woefully understated the problem and that the urgency is far greater than we thought.
	As for the consequences of climate change, we have seen a little of the impact of extreme weather conditions in the UK and the rest of the developed world, but we know that the impact on Africa and the developing world will be far more extreme. The potential for conflict across the globe grows, as climate change leads to issues of disappearance and allocation of resources.
	The House has accepted that aviation is a significant contributor to climate change. At the moment, some 13 per cent. of the UK's contribution to climate change emissions comes from aviation, including some 6 per cent. of the UK's CO2 emissions. We know that that figure will rise to 25 per cent. by 2038 unless we drastically change the direction of policy. Given the role that aviation plays in climate change, are we really saying that we will never again allow Members of Parliament to have a vote on such a significant issue? In effect, that is where Government legislation has left us.
	We talk about the democratic deficit, but the Government say, "Don't worry. We will require that aviation brings CO2 emissions back to 2005 levels by 2050." But the question is how that will be achieved. The technologies do not exist and the science is not in place, never mind the investment. The Government have also said that aviation is a special case. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said:
	"We must all accept the principle that aviation will not bear as big a burden as other sectors in the economy."—[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 404.]
	Must we really accept that without knowing the impact on other industries, on our regions, and on jobs in our constituencies? Indeed, must we accept that without a vote? On an issue that is crucial to the future of our country and our planet, and when every strategy is untried and uncertain, what are we doing giving up our right, and the right of this House, to decide?
	This is a genuinely cross-party Bill. In fact, it is a Back Benchers' Bill. It has three Labour sponsors, three Conservative sponsors, a Plaid Cymru sponsor and four Liberal Democrat sponsors. If I were able to add more sponsors, the list would continue to reflect the make-up of this House very directly.
	I carefully read the speeches made on 28 January in the debate on Heathrow introduced by the Conservatives. Fairly or unfairly, some Labour Members could not bring themselves to vote for an Opposition motion. This Bill is not an Opposition motion, so that inhibition disappears. Some Labour Members thought that the 28 January motion was not clear enough, even though it was based on the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said:
	"I will go home because there is no motion for Members of Parliament like me who want to halt the expansion of aviation".—[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 388.]
	That does not apply to this Bill. Indeed, I suspect that Members who favour airport expansion but care about the rights of this House can see a way to support this Bill, because it is about the democratic deficit as much as it is about climate change and aviation.
	There are times when we have to delegate our responsibilities, but when we are facing the biggest challenge of our lifetime, when our knowledge is so uncertain, and when the cost of a wrong decision is so high, we cannot say, "Oh, the Climate Change Committee will decide." We cannot say, "The Infrastructure Planning Commission will decide." We cannot even say that the Government should decide, unchallenged and unchallengeable by any vote. Our constituents expect us to shoulder crucial responsibilities, and on that basis, I ask hon. Members to support this Bill.

David Wilshire: Like the majority of my constituents who live along the boundary fence at Heathrow, and like my local borough council, I support the building of another runway at Heathrow. However, as you will rightly remind me if I carry on in this vein, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not yet another debate about Heathrow, so I shall avoid that subject for the moment; there will be plenty more opportunities.
	I oppose the Bill for four reasons. First, I want to ask people to consider whether it is really necessary. For heaven's sake, we have already had two debates and two votes recently on the questions of aviation and building new runways. How many more do we want?
	The second reason why I ask the House not to support the Bill is that it refers only to airports. I would go along with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) in that I, too, think that successive Governments have undermined the power of Parliament and I believe that it is right and proper for us to debate whether Parliament should take back some of its power. The time has come for that debate. However, that is a general matter, which we should discuss in the overall pattern of things rather than simply picking on airports. Do I really need to remind the House that going after special issues and using them to make general law results in a dog's breakfast? The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 proves the point only too well—to go after one subject and end up with a general law does damage. I would use that argument about why it is wrong simply to pick on airports, even though I support the principle of more power for Parliament.
	The third reason why I invite people not to support the Bill is that, as the motion is worded, it is about major airports and the extension of runways at major airports. It states that we have to have a vote if the Government want to build or to expand a major airport. Why pick on major airports? If more flying and more runways are wrong, surely we should include all airports? If we leave out minor airports, the principle of the Bill is undermined. Let us just suppose that instead of having a debate about a third runway at Heathrow, which is undeniably a major airport, we suddenly had a debate about a second runway at Northolt, which is a minor airport and would not be covered by the Bill? Another runway at Northolt would in fact be a third runway at Heathrow, so the Bill as it stands is not sensible.
	The fourth reason why I think that the House should not contemplate such a Bill is that we should reflect, just for a moment, on the consequences should the Bill become an Act. If we introduced yet another debate, yet another vote and yet another procedure into the system, we would simply have even more delay in our planning process. It would make it even harder for British airports to respond to foreign competition, and there is enough of that at the moment. We are already suffering from foreign airports' taking business away from us. That is dangerous.
	The second consequence would be that that delay would fatally undermine the fact that the United Kingdom has Europe's No. 1 hub airport at Heathrow. We would damage Heathrow beyond repair if we allowed that to happen. If that were to happen, the next consequence would be serious damage to the national economy. I doubt that anybody in the House wants to vote for a Bill that would make matters worse for the national economy. Over and above those consequences—I refer to the people who sent me to this House—would be massive unemployment in my constituency. I was not sent here to support that or to vote for it.
	The hon. Lady spoke about global warming and climate change. If the Bill became an Act, it would do nothing to help the local environment. All it would do is divert flying to some other airport somewhere else. We would achieve nothing except shooting ourselves in the foot as far as the economy is concerned.
	As I have said, I support the principle of more power for Parliament, but the Bill is not the way to do it. All the Bill would do, if it became an Act, is deepen and lengthen the economic crisis that is facing this country and cause even more financial suffering for my constituents and everyone who lives around Heathrow airport.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	 The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Susan Kramer, John McDonnell, Mr. John Randall, Adam Price, Norman Baker, Mr. John Grogan, Justine Greening, Mr. Edward Davey, Martin Salter, Adam Afriyie, Dr. Vincent Cable and Sarah Teather present the Bill.
	Susan Kramer accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March , and to be printed (Bill  63 ).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]

Law and Order

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House views with great concern the rise in burglary, drug offences and crimes involving knives; is concerned by the Government's complacency about criminal and anti-social behaviour; and is further concerned that the Government has no long-term strategy to tackle the causes of crime.
	Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you a story about life in Britain today. It was told to me by the father of one of our soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The soldier was home on leave and out in his local town centre when he became the victim of an unprovoked attack from behind by two youths. He was able to hold them off and the police were called, but he was left badly bruised by what had been an unpremeditated attack. The two young men were arrested, but then, extraordinarily, they were let off with a caution. After 11 years of this Government, we have become a nation that appears so used to a violent assault of that kind that the police deem it fit only for a caution; we have become a nation in which such attacks are sadly routine and not a rare exception. There can be no clearer example of the fact that our society desperately needs change.
	Once upon a time, a few years ago, a now well-known politician used the phrase "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" to great effect. Now, 12 years after that man, Tony Blair, became our Prime Minister—12 years since this Government took office—that phrase is a hollow memory. We have a Government who have simply failed to deliver; they have been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. We have another snapshot of a broken society, where antisocial behaviour is endemic, violence has become a norm, offenders do not seem to give a damn, carrying weapons is just routine, families can be terrorised by teenage gangs and many of our older people are in fear for their safety.  [Interruption.] I am glad that the Minister for Borders and Immigration agrees with me and that he recognises the problems that we face. I am glad about that, because I think it is important to come and make some key points to this House—not a habit that the Government are used to.
	For the past 10 years, we have had a whole string of initiatives from the Government; there have been more in the past few weeks. All are designed to create a sense of activity and action to tackle the problem, but they have simply not worked.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that so many Ministers are laughing and sniggering at this most serious issue when they have presided over an enormous rise in crime, whether it is measured by the British crime survey, as recorded crime or by any other means? The fact is that one person is being stabbed on the streets of this country virtually every day. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a laughing matter?

Chris Grayling: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Through his work as a special constable, he knows better than most in the House the real nature of the challenge that we face on our streets; it is only a shame that our Ministers do not also understand the nature of that challenge as well.
	The reality is that the things that disrupt our society are just treated as the norm. I do not think that that is good enough, and it is time that we did something about it. That means dealing with the root causes of a broken society, in which, I am afraid, so many of these things are all too often unchallenged. It also means being tough when they happen.

Philip Davies: On being tough when things happen, does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that so many people sent to prison are let out earlier and earlier? Recent figures show that whereas two years ago as many as one in six people were let out earlier than halfway through their sentences, last year more than one in three were. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is totally unacceptable?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has been endemic under this Prime Minister. Many of those former offenders let out on to our streets simply go back and offend again, and that is a sign of the Government being soft on crime.

Christopher Huhne: I was as upset as no doubt the hon. Gentleman was to hear about the case that he mentions of violence against the person leading to a caution. Given that within the offence of violence against the person there are several offences such as harassment and assault without injury, for which I imagine that he thinks that a caution would be appropriate, can he tell us what offence was perpetrated?

Chris Grayling: A young man was attacked from behind, completely motivelessly, by two youths. I may be alone in this, although I am sure not on my own Benches, but I rather believe that in our society we should not tolerate a situation where somebody is out for the evening and gets beaten up on spec by two people who happen to be walking down the street as well. A caution is an unacceptable response to such a crime.
	The reality is that we can see many of the root causes that the former Prime Minister talked about back in the 1990s. We have disaffected young men growing up in broken homes, in an environment where there is little structure in their lives and little sense of responsibility in their upbringing. We have endemic educational failure, with these young men often playing truant as they grow up. We have generational worklessness in their families. There is often the growing problem of addiction to drugs or alcohol, which destroys family life and immunises the consciences of many of those people out on our streets when they come to cause the trouble that they do.

Humfrey Malins: Does my hon. Friend agree—I think that he will—that in the case of many young people there is a link between crime and school exclusions, with literacy and numeracy problems leading to frustration and bad behaviour on the streets?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend, with all his legal experience, knows more than most the root causes of many of the law and order problems that we face among our young people. He is absolutely right. Yesterday, I visited Feltham young offenders institution. What comes over loud and clear is how many of the people who end up in such institutions have profound educational failings in their background. That is certainly an issue that we need to address. It is a scandal that after 12 years of this Government's rhetoric about all the things they were going to do—"My priority is education, education, education"—one in five young people still leave school barely able to read and write. That is not a satisfactory output for years of extra spending in our education system.
	At the heart of this challenge is a simple fact in the lives of many young people: nobody really says no to them, so the misdemeanours of youth go unpunished, and they get away with it and do it again and again. The other consequence of people turning against society and becoming ghettoised is a haemorrhaging of the values that once kept crime in check, particularly violent crime. Too many people just do not care and cannot tell the difference between good and bad, and the Government do not know what to do about it.

Edward O'Hara: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore applaud this weekend's Operation Staysafe, which was pioneered by Merseyside police, although I understand that other police forces followed suit? They picked up young people on the streets who were at risk of becoming victims of crime or on the slippery path to becoming criminals themselves. Some 60 children were picked up, 29 of them in my own borough of Knowsley, and taken to safe places—some of them were even taken to hospital because of their consumption of drink—and their parents were involved. Is not that something practical that the Government are doing to address the issue that he mentions?

Chris Grayling: I will be in Liverpool tomorrow meeting the chief constable of Merseyside, so I look forward to finding out about what he is doing. It is right and proper that we should give our police greater freedom to do their job properly, and the hon. Gentleman describes good work on the ground from our police. However, they tell us all too often that they cannot do the job that they would like to do because this Government have wrapped them up in red tape and left them sitting in police stations filling in forms.

Keith Vaz: On that point, one of the things that Government and Opposition Front Benchers have talked about over the last few years is a reduction in bureaucracy. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his proposals for grounding orders will not lead to more bureaucracy? The police would have to visit the youngsters' homes in order to check that they were still there once they were subject to such orders. Has he considered that possible consequence of what he has suggested?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman refers to my proposal on grounding orders, and I will happily deal now with that issue, about which I have talked extensively to police officers. The big problem is that there is nothing between a police officer meeting a gang of young people on the streets and the criminal justice system except for the Government's clumsy system of antisocial behaviour orders, which take months, and multiple agencies, to deliver. Police officers say that they want something simple and straightforward that gives them some power to deal immediately with the problems that they face. They do not have such powers today, and I believe that my proposals will grant them in a way that is quick, simple and not bureaucratic.
	The Government's record speaks for itself. There has been a decade of failure to get to grips with law and order problems. Violent crime is up almost 80 per cent., robbery is up 27 per cent., criminal damage is up past 1 million offences, with nearly 3,000 committed every day, fatal stabbings are up by a third, and gun crime has nearly doubled, with injuries from gun crime up almost fourfold—and the Government's response has been to be soft on crime. They have let people out of prison early, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rightly said. Since the Prime Minister came to power, 47,000 people have been released early from prison, including 9,000 convicted of violent offences. Nearly 1,000 crimes have been committed by criminals who have been released early—and they are only the ones who have been caught. Five out of six offenders convicted of knife possession get off without a jail sentence. More and more offenders are let off with penalty notices, half of which are not even paid.
	The Government have also been soft on the causes of crime. A culture has been allowed to grow outside society's mainstream, somewhere alienated and with no hope; it is
	"a culture of broken homes, truancy, poor education, drugs, no job, or dead end jobs...when we sow the seeds of such a culture, we should not be surprised at the harvest we reap".
	Those words are not mine, but those of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking back in 1993. He was right to say what he said then. This Government have utterly failed to get to grips with those challenges.
	We are still waiting for real action on welfare reform 10 years on. On family policy, this Government have made it more financially attractive for some couples to live apart. The Government have thrown billions at our education system, but utterly failed to tackle truancy, indiscipline and endemic educational failure.

William Cash: On the question of education, does my hon. Friend not agree that in the context of our proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a considerable opportunity for us to consider reintroducing some form of physical punishment in schools to ensure that discipline is carried out, and indeed, to consider doing so outside schools, when we are dealing with thugs who are victimising the elderly and people who cannot help themselves?

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these subjects and on what could be done. I am not sure that I agree with all of them, but none the less, we share the aspiration of coming up with the right way of saying no to young people who step out of line without criminalising them.
	We have big challenges ahead if we are to deal with the causes of crime, but we also have to be tough on crime itself. We have to tackle youth antisocial behaviour. Plenty of teenagers stray off the straight and narrow sometimes, but today there are no consequences when they do so. That is what has to change. All too often, when we look at the case of a 15 or 16-year-old who is starting to commit serious offences, we find a story of years of minor misdemeanours that have gone unpunished. That cannot be right. At the moment, things are moving in the wrong direction. In 2007-08, more than 93,000 youngsters aged between 10 and 17 received their first caution or conviction, which is up from 78,000 just five years ago—a big jump in the wrong direction.
	ASBOs have become a badge of honour for some, and they take months to impose. The Government's section 30 orders just move young gangs from the streets that they are on to the next potential hot spot. In the police Bill currently being considered, the Government are even talking about moving 10-year-olds on to the next street. I think that 10-year-olds out on the street causing difficulties should be sent home, not just moved on to the next street. That is where my thinking about grounding orders comes from, because they would give the police a power to send an immediate message to such young offenders that they cannot get away with causing trouble on our streets.

Christopher Huhne: Taking on board the point made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about the need to minimise police bureaucracy, would the hon. Gentleman perhaps consider an alternative to his proposal for grounding orders? Penalty notices could be given by police officers or police community support officers asking young people to clean up things such as graffiti immediately. That would not require the constant supervision that is arguably suggested by the grounding order, and it would be clear and easy to apply.

Chris Grayling: There is some logic in having tougher community sentences for young offenders, but the simplicity of the grounding order makes it deliverable quickly by the police and local magistrates. It would be a powerful weapon in the armoury of individual officers in trying to deal with such problems.
	The second thing that we need to change is the licensing regime. We should be much more robust about binge drinking in our towns and cities. There is a strong case for reviewing Labour's 24-hour drinking regime, which has not created the continental café culture that we were promised. We should deal systematically with retailers who break licensing laws and clubs that allow drug taking on their premises, and there should be powers to do so simply and quickly. We need to take steps to stop unacceptable practices in the sale of alcohol to young people. I have come across the case of an organisation delivering alcohol to a local park, which cannot be sensible or acceptable.

Keith Vaz: So would the hon. Gentleman agree with the Home Affairs Committee's unanimous recommendation that there should be a floor price for alcohol sales at supermarkets?

Chris Grayling: That is a different point, and I have not had a chance to read the Committee's report, but I am aware that it has made that recommendation. I do not think that the matter is as straightforward as the Committee suggests, but I will happily read the recommendations and talk to the right hon. Gentleman about them at some point.
	The third thing that we need to do is deal with the caution culture that I mentioned earlier. Issuing a caution should not be a case closed, a tick in the box and an extra notch on the list to be sent to the Home Office for the Home Secretary to review. That is not good enough. Giving someone a caution should not be a way of scoring an easy win in the case-closed league table. That has to be a thing of the past. Someone found carrying a knife in a city centre should end up in the courts and then behind bars, not get a caution. Unbelievably, I was told recently of someone getting a £65 penalty notice for carrying a 3 ft-long samurai sword around a city centre. All that has to stop. Someone who attacks a stranger in the street should end up in court and then behind bars, not get a caution and simply be sent on their way.
	The fourth change that we desperately need is that oldest of political chestnuts, which we have been promised year after year by this Government: more police on the beat. Still only about 14 per cent. of police officers' time is spent on patrol, compared with about a fifth on paperwork. If we walk into any police station and ask the officers what is their biggest bugbear, despite all the reports, reviews and announcements, they still tell us that it is the paperwork.

Anne Main: I am sure that my hon. Friend must therefore be as dismayed as I am to read about the cuts in police force numbers. Indeed, 49 police officers will be lost in Hertfordshire alone. I do not think that that can possibly be conducive to being tough on the causes of crime.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. The reality, as we saw in the most recent crime figures, is that there has been a big jump in the number of robberies with knives and a worrying increase in burglary. Because this Government have wrecked our public finances, we will end up with fewer police on our streets, which is not acceptable.
	What we have today is a Government who have lost their way. They do not realise that all the criminal justice Bills that they have passed in the past decade have just wrapped up the police in yet more bureaucracy. They do not realise that Acts of Parliament introducing more and more crimes do not actually solve crimes, or that their inability not to interfere is holding the police back. They look like a tired Government who have run out of ideas, and they seem to have little idea of how to solve the problems that we all face. To my mind, that is always a pretty clear sign that what we need in this country is change.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
	"welcomes the unprecedented 39 per cent. fall in crime since 1997, with burglary down by 55 per cent. and violence by 40 per cent; notes that the chance of being a victim of crime is at an historic low; further welcomes the record numbers now entering and staying in drug treatment services; further supports the drive to tackle gangs, including measures in the Policing and Crime Bill to introduce injunctions on gang activity; further welcomes the preventative, educational and enforcement action taken to tackle knife crime, with those carrying a knife now more likely to be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned, if found guilty; considers that the Government's determination to tackle criminal and antisocial behaviour is demonstrated by the record levels of investment in policing since 1997 and increases in the numbers of police officers and police staff to an all-time high, as well as the Government's drive to cut police red tape to free up more time for police officers to spend on the beat; is concerned at any proposal to make sudden cuts to the Home Office budget that could lead to reductions in police officer numbers; commends the Government's determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with local communities in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour; and deplores talk of a 'broken society' as a counsel of despair."
	We might need change, but we have not had much change in the Opposition spokesman's speech this week. My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration describes it as the "single transferable speech"—delivered yesterday, reported yesterday, repeated in the House today. However, I suppose that it is a mark of the new-found commitment of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime that at least he has succeeded in making a speech about law and order without once describing the Government's action as a gimmick.
	That, essentially, was the Conservative party's policy on law and order under the hon. Gentleman's two predecessors. They told us that the knife scanners in which we had invested were a gimmick. The told us that the ability to call or e-mail neighbourhood policing teams, which now patrol streets in every neighbourhood in this country, was a gimmick. They told us that taking action against young people who persistently drink in public was a gimmick. They told us that educating young people about the dangers of binge drinking was a gimmick—but then the Conservative party has pledged to cut all the advertising that warns young people about the dangers of alcohol, drugs and knives.

Tobias Ellwood: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and congratulate her on managing to muster one Labour Back Bencher for this important debate. She mentions gimmicks. What has happened to the respect agenda, which hit Bournemouth—we were told that it would help people in Boscombe—like a whirlwind? With a great fanfare, the Home Secretary or one of her colleagues came to Bournemouth to announce the initiative. What has happened to it? I can tell her, before she gets up to reply, that it was a gimmick. We have heard nothing of it since the announcement.

Jacqui Smith: The respect agenda and work on antisocial behaviour throughout the country mean that in nine out of 10 council areas, people believe that antisocial behaviour has decreased. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants that to continue.

Keith Vaz: One of the Home Secretary's proudest boasts in the past two years—and that of all Labour Home Secretaries—is the increase in police numbers. Is she as alarmed as I am to read in  The Times today that the chief constable of Gloucestershire suggests a reduction in the number of police officers, not only in Gloucestershire but in other parts of the country, when we have received figures that show that the number of police officers has increased? We have police community support officers for the first time, and the work force as a whole have increased by 50,000. Where do the figures about the necessity for a reduction come from?

Jacqui Smith: I am not sure where those figures come from, because there were more than 800 more police officers on our streets in September 2008 than there were in September 2007. The chief constable of Gloucestershire leads for the Association of Chief Police Officers on finance, and when we announced our spending review provision for police grant he said:
	"The overall settlement is broadly in line with anticipated rises in core costs, and this will help preserve many of the key gains in police officer and police staff numbers made in recent years."
	Police authorities are still working to those budgets, and the Government have invested in increased police numbers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I shall give way in a moment.
	To continue with the point about gimmicks, Conservative Members told us that that seizing drug dealers' assets on arrest was a gimmick. They also described reviewing the incapacity benefit of drug addicts who are not willing to undergo rehabilitation as a gimmick. So much for the professed interest of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in tackling the causes of crime as well as crime itself.
	Hon. Members will remember how the hon. Gentleman's predecessors were united in their opposition to antisocial behaviour orders. Those were another "gimmick"—one that the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues tried to water down so that an ASBO could apply for only three months rather than two years. I know of many communities throughout the country that are still breathing a sigh of relief that they failed in their attempt.

Humfrey Malins: On the subject of effective policies that the Government have introduced, may I take the Home Secretary back to the time when I revealed to the Committee that considered the Violent Crime Reduction Bill that many thousands of children carried knives into school every day? The Government's answer then was to introduce a policy allowing head teachers to search children for knives. Has that happened often? Roughly how many prosecutions have resulted from the exercise of that power?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, it has happened. What has also happened is that scanners have been made available in some schools, along with search arches. It is a good thing that knives are hardly ever found in our schools. The point of the policy, as the hon. Gentleman said, is not to get young people into court, but to deter them from carrying knives in the first place, and that is what we have been doing. Thankfully, Opposition Members have failed in their attempts to undermine our determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with local communities in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour and to give them the powers that they need to stop daily life from being made a misery.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: In a moment.
	Last December I visited a neighbourhood in Tower Hamlets where the local council and the police had used the new premises closure order powers that this Government introduced to evict the persistent offenders living in one flat and to board it up. That order was made possible only because covert CCTV had helped to capture evidence of antisocial behaviour and illegal activities. We know that CCTV is crucial to protecting the decent law-abiding public from thuggish behaviour, but we do not know where the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and his Front-Bench colleagues stand on the issue these days. If he can bring himself to support the use of CCTV to make our streets safe, and the use of the DNA database to catch criminals, that will indeed be a major step forward in Tory thinking.

Bob Spink: I will be supporting the Home Secretary's amendment in the Lobby this evening because it is constructive, rather than simply an example of petty point-scoring like the Opposition's motion. Does she agree that communities will find nothing gimmicky in the use of technical equipment to recognise car number plates, so that they can know that they will be kept safe by the police? The police can see burglars and other known criminals going into communities in their cars and can take defensive action to stop burglaries and other crimes. There is nothing gimmicky about that; it is just a good example of using technical equipment in policing.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is absolutely right: that is why police officers who use number plate recognition are five times more effective at making arrests than those who do not.
	Whatever the truth, I suspect that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, despite what he said, will not be sharing a platform with his two immediate predecessors at the meeting of the convention on modern liberty this Saturday. That is a pity, because it would be a good opportunity to explain his latest thinking on the need for there to be "fewer rights, more wrongs". I wonder what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), with his solid support for the European convention on human rights, will make of that comment, which we heard this week.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell may not be keen on rights, but he is not very keen on facts, either. There are several important facts that we need to put on the record for him this afternoon. First, since 1997 crime in this country has come down by 39 per cent.—an unprecedented amount—overall. Violence is down by 40 per cent. and burglary is down by 55 per cent. He has only been in his job for a month, but before he opens his mouth to repeat the claim that violent crime is up by almost 80 per cent.—he has done it again today—I hope that he will pause for thought and try to remember two crucial details: the expansion of the "violent crime" category in 1998, and the introduction of the national crime recording standard in April 2002.
	If the hon. Gentleman needs a lesson in the Conservative party's position on those changes, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) will oblige. However, those changes were designed to be honest about crime, so that common assault was classed as the violent crime that it is, and so that, rather than recording a single incident, the number of victims involved was recorded instead. As we know, according to the British crime survey, violence has actually fallen by 40 per cent. since 1997.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have attempted to catch the Home Secretary's eye but at this moment she is not prepared to give way.

Jacqui Smith: Since that change in 2001, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will know from the detailed answers that I have provided to his written question of 4 February, between 2002-03 and 2007-08, the total number of all criminal offences recorded dropped by just over 1 million.

Crispin Blunt: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I have been doing my current job for only a month—but it is the Home Secretary's own figures that we are using to calculate the rise of 88 per cent. She is right to say that on an unadjusted basis the figures would be different, because the rise then would be 300 per cent. The figures are in a Home Office statistical bulletin—and I know there is some doubt on the part of the chief statistician about the manipulation of Home Office figures—but on a like-for-like basis, there were 502,778 offences in 1998-99 as compared with 961,188 offences in the last year.

Jacqui Smith: Let me contribute to the hon. Gentleman's education. I have just explained the difference made by changes to the violent crime category in 1998 and changes to the national crime recording standard in 2002. That is why the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds subscribed to the British crime survey as being an important way in which we measure violent crime. In the British crime survey, measured on a like-for-like basis, violent crime has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1997. That is due in large part, of course, to the tireless work of the police in bearing down on crime and building up public confidence.
	That brings me to fact No. 2. Since 1997, we have seen record investment in the police and record numbers of police officers, police staff and police community support officers: record investment and record numbers, backed up by concrete steps to cut red tape, such as scrapping the stop-and-account form and police timesheets, so that more officers are freed up to spend more time on the beat. The action that we are taking will help us to deliver our plans to save up to 7 million hours of police time—the equivalent of an extra 3,500 officers.
	Yet we have heard few words of support from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell today about the efforts the police are making to keep our streets safe. In fact, we hear quite the reverse. In his first outing before the House in his current role just over a month ago, the hon. Gentleman used a curious phrase about the police. When challenged directly on where his party's plans for sudden cuts to the Home Office budget would fall, he said that there was a need
	"for all of us, in these difficult times, to draw in the horns of the public sector".—[ Official Report, 19 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 528.]
	The hon. Gentleman likes to think that he has a reputation for straight talking, so let us translate that uncharacteristic shyness into plain English. That means 3,500 fewer police officers in this country, including 49 in his local police force alone. The contrast could not be more stark: our plans to free up 3,500 more officers, or the Opposition's plans to make cuts of the same number.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Jacqui Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he has not replied to my letter on precisely this point.

Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how much her Department spent on management consultants last year?

Jacqui Smith: It was certainly not £160 million, which is the amount the hon. Gentleman is proposing to cut from our budget—the equivalent of 3,500 police officers. If it is not, he can respond to my letter and say so.

Rosie Cooper: I have listened very carefully, but I tend to judge people not just by what they say, but by what they do. Both the Home Secretary and Conservative Members might like to think about what is happening in my local authority area. Although there are substantial reserves—I mean millions; about £7 million is there to be used—the Tories have frightened local people by saying that one reduction they might make tomorrow is to reduce the number of PCSOs. Tomorrow, then, a Tory local authority will consider reducing the number of PCSOs, frightening local people with the prospect of losing the services previously provided. That is why I say that what matters is not so much what people say, but what they do. I will watch and see what they do tomorrow.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about the action taken by Tories when they are in power.
	Today and yesterday, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell made some pretty big claims. He said, for example, that violence "has become a norm". I think that I have already pointed out that that is not the case. Three in every 100 people will be affected by violence this year. That is still too many, but it is a wilful delusion on his part to say that it approaches a norm. Yesterday he said—he said it again today—that
	"carrying weapons is increasingly the norm".
	Not so. Even in the hot spots that we have targeted, only 2 per cent. of stops find a knife. Guns are much rarer still. I remind the House that firearms-related injuries have halved in the areas targeted by the work of the tackling gangs action programme.
	Yesterday, and again today, the hon. Gentleman suggested that truancy is the norm. Not so. The last time I looked, pupils missed less than 1 per cent. of school sessions. That is too high, but truancy is not the norm. Violence is the exception in this country, not the norm. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of the facts and to paint a false and damaging picture of families and communities up and down the country.
	Britain is not broken—far from it—and I will defy anybody who says that it is. To call Britain broken is to offer no hope and no help to communities that need our support and are doing their best to make a better life for themselves. It is to surrender to a counsel of despair, rather than trying to solve people's problems.
	Confidence is a precious thing, and the hon. Gentleman—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary will decide to give way as and when she pleases. Will Members please bear that in mind?

Jacqui Smith: Confidence is a precious thing, and the hon. Gentleman should choose his words carefully before he undermines that confidence and runs communities and the police down. At the very least, he should try to keep up with the facts, as we have seen today, and see for himself the difference that our action is making on the ground.
	As the hon. Gentleman was adding the final flourishes to his speech this weekend, police and children's services across England were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) pointed out, running Operation Staysafe patrols—talking to more than 1,000 young people out on the streets and, where necessary, taking them home to their parents and asking those parents to explain why their kids were out late. On Friday night and Saturday night, the police were out doing the very thing that the hon. Gentleman claimed on Monday morning that they were not doing enough of.
	The hon. Gentleman also needs to look at the small print of his proposals on the curfew order, which we have heard more of today, to keep troublemakers inside their houses. That is a good idea, which is why the police already have the power to go to a magistrate and ask for a troublemaker to be prevented from leaving their house at night. That is called an ASBO. Since 1999, the police have routinely been able to impose a curfew as a condition of an ASBO, and breaching it is a criminal offence.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. There is nothing wrong with putting forward new ideas, but my problem with the proposals of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is that they would tie the police down even more. If they had to visit the homes of those who are subjected to grounding orders, that would take up more time, not less.

Jacqui Smith: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that there are times when police officers should visit the homes of young people whom they are returning to those homes. They should be supported through Government investment in things such as Operation Staysafe to be able to do so.
	Crime is down—not just through tough enforcement, but through preventive action to tackle its causes and to build public confidence in the fight against crime. When we put more police officers on to the streets and invest in police community support officers to provide visibility—

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendment to the motion before the House, which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, specifically states that the Home Secretary's proposals include
	"measures in the Policing and Crime Bill to introduce injunctions on gang activity".
	There does not appear to be any reference to that in the Bill, or indeed in the explanatory notes. Can the Home Secretary be called upon to explain what the motion is supposed to mean in those terms?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are not discussing— [Interruption.] Order. We are not discussing a Bill; we are discussing a motion and an amendment, which are before the House.

Jacqui Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	When we put more police officers on the streets and invest in PCSOs to provide visibility and reassurance, crime comes down. When we take a tough approach to antisocial behaviour, crime comes down. When we more than double the number of people in drug treatment, crime comes down. When we ensure that parents live up to their responsibilities, and when we invest £25 million in family intervention projects to reach 20,000 of the most complex families over the next two years, crime comes down.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talks tough about targeting problem families, but his party is no fan of parenting orders and his colleagues would cut funding for those projects. I suppose that that is what can be called "drawing in the horns of the public sector" as well.
	When times are tough, I am determined to meet the new challenges head on. I am determined to help people in hard times. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman can say will change that. In fact, the "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" tone that he has adopted reminds me not of Tony Blair in 1993, but of someone very different. The echoes are rather more of John Major in the same year, when he said:
	"Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less."
	When the hon. Gentleman says that we need "fewer rights, more wrongs"; when he calls for the criminalisation of all children; when his first instinct is not to welcome the dramatic falls in crime that we have seen since 1997 but, like a bad workman, to blame the tools that measure those falls; when he wilfully misunderstands the picture showing how violent crime has dropped in this country; when he describes as meaningless the hard work of the police and communities in coming together to build a better life for themselves, and to take on gangs and stand up to knife crime—then it is certainly the case that condemnation is on the rise and understanding is on the wane, but the lack of understanding is entirely on the hon. Gentleman's part and on no one else's.
	I commend the amendment to the House.

Christopher Huhne: I hope that all of us, in all parts of the House, can agree that crime is too high, and that violent crime is a continuing and real concern. I hope that there is, therefore, a consensus on the ends, but where there is clearly not a consensus is on the means.
	This debate should, in our view, be about what works. There is a clear pragmatic principle, but sadly it seems that the debate is not about that. Both the other parties are locked in a populist battle about punishment—about who can be tougher, who can promise longer sentences, and who can lock up more people. The Government have criminalised a generation of young people. We lock up more young people than any other country in Europe. In 10 years, the number of 15-to-17-year-olds in custody has risen by 86 per cent. Our overall prison population has doubled, and it is also the highest in Europe. The average Crown court sentence has risen from 22 months to 25 months since 1997.
	At the same time, we have clearly succumbed to legislative diarrhoea, with 3,600 new criminal offences and 66 new criminal justice Bills. Bills are being used to send signals like press releases. Do we really need a new offence of setting off a nuclear explosion? Would not murder, or even criminal damage, have been sufficient? Is it any wonder that all who try to make the criminal justice system work, from police officers through barristers to judges, are mystified by the results of this legal whirling dervish?
	The message from those on the Conservative Benches is not that the Government's toughness has failed but that it has not even been tried, which is extraordinary. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) says that he wants "at home ASBOs" for young people, so that they can be marched off and put under curfew. As we have heard, those powers are already on the statute book to cover night-time. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he wants to extend them to cover all time other than time at school. He wants a presumption that everyone carrying a knife will suffer a custodial sentence. Let us leave aside the completely implausible cost of that proposal.
	The hon. Gentleman says that cautions should not be issued in cases that would include harassment and assault without injury. He wants to curb bail so that more people would wait in cells before trial if they pose a risk to public safety. Such a broad definition would surely encapsulate most car drivers. More people would effectively be found guilty until proved innocent.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman has talked of the number of people whom we lock up in this country. For every 1,000 crimes committed in this country, we lock up between 12 and 13 people. Can the hon. Gentleman name any other country in the world that locks up fewer people than 12 for every 1,000 crimes committed?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a difference between my party and his on whether it is more relevant to give the figure relating to the population which is always given in international comparisons, or to scrabble around for a figure in an attempt to persuade us that we are not punitive. The embarrassing—

Philip Davies: rose—

Christopher Huhne: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's point before he intervenes again.
	The embarrassing evidence for both the Government and the official Opposition is that punitiveness does not work to cut crime. For those who like simple correlations, a rise in the prison population against the recent fall in overall crime looks persuasive, of course, but the comparison does not look so persuasive when we note that the only country in the European Union where crime has risen since 1988 is Belgium. Everywhere else crime has fallen, including in the UK. In Denmark, there was a 9 per cent. fall in crime and a 9 per cent. cut in the prison population, and Finland offers a similar example. Outside the EU, in Canada there has been a 17 per cent. drop in crime with incarceration rates broadly stable.

David Davies: Does this not actually prove the point of those who say that prison works? Lots of people go into prison; lots of people suddenly decide it is not a good idea to commit crime; therefore, the number of crimes committed goes down and the prison population falls because there is no need to lock as many people up. That is why prison works, and prison is a bargain for the taxpayer.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening to my speech, and I suggest he studies it in  Hansard tomorrow, because I have given him a lot of international examples of where there are falling prison populations combined with falling crime. That evidence presents a real problem for his argument.
	Of course the criminal justice system matters. It matters if it stops reoffending, but ours does not—at least not adequately. Of the young men whom we lock up in prison for the first time with sentences of less than a year, 92 per cent. go on to reoffend—prisons are, frankly, colleges of crime. A former Conservative Home Secretary, David Waddington, said that prison was
	"an expensive way of making bad people worse."
	We should use non-custodial means of dealing with young and first offenders far more, not because we are soft, but because it works. The Matrix Knowledge Group recently found that seven alternatives to prison were better value for money for the taxpayer in reducing reoffending—and I always thought the Conservatives were keen on better value for money.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the number of people who commit crimes after being sentenced to prison for less than a year is very high, but will he concede that the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend? For those who spend more than four years in prison, the reoffending rate drops to about 35 per cent. Is not the answer, therefore, that these people should spend longer in prison, rather than less?

Christopher Huhne: I take it the hon. Gentleman is not making an application to join his party's Treasury team, because if so, he would suffer severe embarrassment on account of that suggestion; if he were to work through the public expenditure costs of what he appears to be suggesting, he would have to put up taxation enormously.
	The truth is that as the Home Office's own sponsored research has shown, there is
	"no firm evidence regarding the extent to which raising severities of punishment would enhance deterrence of crime."
	Excuse the bureaucratic language, but let me translate: this is Home Office-sponsored research that says punishment does not work to cut crime. Of course, there must be prison for serious offences and for serial offenders, but what matters most in cutting crime is detection. We could introduce sharia law in this country, but we would not cut crime if the detection rate did not improve.
	If we take the British crime survey definitions of crime and add in crime against young people under 16 and business crime, we can see that about one crime in 100 leads to a conviction in a court of law, and that is nothing like enough—I hope that the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) agree. Detection rates of recorded crime have fallen back from 34 per cent. at the end of the '80s to 28 per cent. according to the latest figures. We can all agree that we need to cut police bureaucracy and to use more information technology, but anyone who thinks that they are the real or only problems has not studied the sharp differences in detection rates between police forces. Even for crimes such as violence against the person, to which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has rightly been drawing attention, detection rates vary from a low of 36 per cent. in the case of London's Metropolitan police to 67 per cent. in North Yorkshire. Of course, rural areas are easier to consider in this regard, but even like-with-like comparisons show big gaps in performance: Merseyside and Greater Manchester police manage rates of 54 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively, which are far higher than the figure for the Metropolitan police.
	What if we narrowed the differences with best practice? Some 400,000 more crimes would be detected if the average detection rate were close to that of the top 10 per cent. We need more police on the beat, which should be done by curbing prison costs and by scrapping the identity card scheme. Equally important, at a time of scrimping on budgets and real hardship for so many families, is the need for better and more effective policing.

Peter Bone: Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that over the past three years the proportion of police officer time on the beat has shrunk from an extraordinarily low 15 per cent. to 10 per cent? The level is decreasing rather than increasing.

Christopher Huhne: I certainly wish to ensure that police forces try to get as many officers in the front line, doing what the public want them to do, as possible. I believe that there are a set of answers on that issue, one of which is cutting bureaucracy and reducing the amount of time that officers have to spend repeating tasks that they have already done when they take their original notes.
	May I discuss the broader question of how we improve efficiency? The Government had an answer in their Police Reform Act 2002—to set targets for everything that moved. That had some brutal impact, but the benefits of Gosplan-style centralism were always overestimated by the Labour party and only ever work in the most unsophisticated economy. Then we had the Green Paper, which sensibly suggested getting rid of targets and establishing serious local accountability instead. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary has now bottled the local accountability, so we are back to the system we had before 2002, which was found to have failed. What is it in the Government's view that will drive up police performance if it is not genuine local accountability? At least both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives agree on accountability, although we feel that the Conservative proposals are dangerously Napoleonic and Caesarist, and we would prefer a more pluralist and British model. I would be happy to give way at this point, but I see that no hon. Member wishes to intervene.
	Strong local accountability would ensure a focus on improving performance on key local priorities and it would mean holding police officers to account. It is not in the interests of the vast majority of hard-working officers that a small minority of passengers go undisciplined, yet one would conclude that it is from the tiny number of police officers who are dismissed from their force under one incapability procedure or another. Those serious issues of police reform are ones that both the Government and the official Opposition, when they were in government, have run away from—one saw that in the Sheehy report in 1993 and in report after report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. One of its more recent reports in 2004 said that we needed a
	"fundamental review of concepts such as the single point of entry to the service, the 30-year police career and the current non-transferability of training, skills and qualifications".
	If we are to remodel the criminal justice system on what works, it is inescapable that we must also invest more in the practical research that can test scientifically what works. The National Policing Improvement Agency should be given a wider remit and should aim to do for policing, and, indeed for the wider criminal justice system, what the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does for medicine. We should also put public faith back into the crime figures by ensuring that we do not have repeats of today's rather unedifying spat between the Conservatives and Labour on whether or not the British crime survey or the recorded crime figures are correct. Let us make the Home Office statistical unit part of the Office for National Statistics itself. Let us make detection rates as well as crime figures available at ward level, so that people can see police progress as well as what the problem is.

Keith Vaz: We have discussed statistics, how many police officers have gone on the beat in the past 10 years and the statement from the chief constable of Gloucestershire that he will have to lose 60 police officers. These figures ought to be independently monitored, so that we have a proper set of statistics to debate.

Christopher Huhne: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We should try to ensure that the debates in this Chamber are about real differences of views, values and approach, based on the evidence, and are not extremely arid exchanges about which figures are right and which are wrong. We faced exactly this sort of problem in relation to economics in the 1980s, because when the Conservatives were in power they proceeded to change the unemployment figures time after time and it was only when the figures were put clearly under independent control, out of the hands of Ministers, that some restoration of public confidence in those numbers took place.
	Let us end centralised targets and give local police authorities far more power. Let us head young people off from the criminal justice system early on, rather than have it come down on them with its full weight and turn them into lifelong criminals. Let us use community justice panels to decide how the punishment should fit the crime. The truth is that the Government have run out of ideas and are merely serving up another knee-jerk reaction of populist punitiveness. They no longer have any serious proposals to improve policing, even though the need to do so is manifest. The official Opposition look like reheated leftovers from the Blairite heyday: tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. What we need is a real change, a new approach and what works.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who made sensible suggestions, especially on police accountability; I think that was the first time the shadow Home Secretary has been described as being Napoleon and Caesar in the same sentence—one was slightly taller than the other, but both were shorter than the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
	This is an important debate, and I glad that the Opposition have used part of their time to discuss law and order. It is important that we discuss the issue regularly and that it remains at the forefront of the Government's policies on the domestic agenda. I was pleased to hear about the real success story of the Government's policy on law and order over the past 12 years. I was also pleased to hear from the Home Secretary about the following: the work of the neighbourhood policing teams; the record level of investment that has been made; the overall fall in crime—she put that at 40 per cent., and although my figures show that the fall has been even better, we will use her figures; and the fact that this country's police funding is the highest among the OECD. I welcome the decision taken only last week by Ministers to implement the rest of the recommendations of the Flanagan report. I believe that of the 59 recommendations to cut police bureaucracy 19 have so far —[Interruption.] I do not wish to interrupt the discussion going on between the two junior Ministers on the Front Bench, because I know that they have important things to discuss—

Phil Woolas: We were talking about your report.

Keith Vaz: It is kind of the Minister to say that, but as I was lavishing praise on the Government I would have thought he would wish to hear it. I was pleased that 19 of the 59 recommendations made by Sir Ronnie Flanagan have been implemented and that only this week a written statement from the Home Secretary told us that the so-called Normington review and the first tranche of work by Jan Berry are to be accepted by the Home Office and that therefore bureaucracy will be cut even further.
	The clarion call from all Members of this House, from all parts, for as long as I have been here—that is 22 years, this year—has been that we need to have more police officers on the beat. The issue of visibility was raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), and we need to see our bobbies on the beat. If we accept the Government's figures—I am glad to see the Minister smiling—an additional 50,000 people have joined the police work force as a whole. I am talking about civilians as well as uniformed officers. If we accept the Government's figures, there are 15,805 police community support officers that we never had before and we have an extra 15,000 police officers—their number has increased from 125,825 to 140,230 this year.
	If we accept those figures, they should mean that there is a police office on practically every street at every moment of the day. We know that that is not practical, and that is why we welcome the reduction in bureaucracy that will lead to that outcome. That is why I intervened on the Home Secretary—

Peter Bone: As always, I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, and he makes a lot of sense. The Government's answer to a question put by me suggests that the number of police officers on patrol has fallen by 30 per cent. in the last three years. We may be getting more police officers, but they are certainly not out on the beat.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Government have sought to make amends. The problem is the targets that were imposed on police officers at every level. Those targets are now being removed. I do not understand why we would impose targets on local police forces in an attempt to make them more efficient and cost-effective, and then five or six years later decide that targets do not work and there is no point having them. But let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They have recognised that the targets that were imposed were not necessary and they are removing them. That will result in an extra 260,000 hours of police time. If we accept what the Government have said this week, police officers will have an extra 30 minutes a day out of the police station and out on the beat, in Northampton, in Leicester and in London—where we would like to see them and so that we can justify all the additional money that we have spent on the police service. If that is the Government's direction, I welcome it wholeheartedly. If it means more officers on the beat and not filling in forms, hooray for that.
	My concern, as I raised with the Home Secretary, was the report in  The Times today and the comments made by Dr. Timothy Brain, who is supposed to be the leading expert—and with a name like that, one would imagine that he would be—for the Association of Chief Police Officers on finance. That chief constable told the newspaper that, as a result of what the Government have done over the past few years, he will have to cut the number of police officers in his force in Gloucestershire by 60. The newspaper telephoned other chief constables to ask them what the reduction will be in their area. In Suffolk—I choose that county off the top of my head—we are told that the reduction will be 28 officers.
	The fact is that we need an independent audit to prove who is right. The Government assert that more money has been spent on the police force than at any time in its history. But Dr. Brain and other chief constables readily tell newspapers that they will have to reduce the number of officers as a result of what the Government have done. These are serious matters, and they go to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Let us be clear about those statistics. Let us monitor them independently, so that we can have a real debate about substance and policy, rather than about whose statistics are correct.

Christopher Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation that he sets out is of particular concern at a time when we know that we can expect—and are beginning to see—a rise in acquisitive crime because of the impact of the recession? This is not the time to remove police officers from the front line.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is the worst time to do that, and I do not think that it will happen. Given the Government's figures, the introduction of PCSOs and the proposals to reduce bureaucracy, what will police officers do if they do not need to fill in unnecessary forms and will be resourced as they have never been resourced before? In those circumstances, there should be no reduction in the number of police officers.
	My second point is about new technology. I welcome what the Government have done in making a commitment to put in an extra £18 million for new technology, and that is precisely what the Home Affairs Committee called for—I see two members of the Committee in their places. "Policing for the 21st Century" was a unanimous report. We took evidence for over nine months from witnesses including Sir Ronnie Flanagan and Ministers, and we came to the conclusion that new technology would save police officers enormous amounts of time. The investment in new technology should be warmly welcomed, with the caveat suggested by Jan Berry in her report about the need for compatibility between police forces. There is no point in Lincolnshire buying one type of equipment if it is incompatible with the equipment that is purchased by Leicestershire. I suggest that Ministers, as well as providing the money, should introduce effective guidelines on procurement to ensure that when police forces buy new technology and equipment, it is compatible with other areas. That matter is connected to the database issue and the need to ensure that when the computers of the 42 different police authorities speak to each other, they are able to understand what is required.
	We welcome the desire to reduce the level of bureaucracy in the requests for information between police forces, and from the Home Office, but it is essential that the new technology works and is compatible. I do not suggest that everyone should buy a BlackBerry, although I know that several hon. Members have one, as does the President of the United States, but it is estimated that such devices cost only £1 a day— [ Interruption. ] I see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is checking his BlackBerry— [ Interruption. ] I apologise—I did not mean to get him into trouble. The fact is that they are very useful pieces of equipment. Imagine a police officer at the scene of a crime being able to access information from his or her BlackBerry, taking down statements there and then, and saving time.

Tom Brake: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while technology is very important, the accompanying training is equally important? So although the Government have announced that Tasers will be made available—I am not very happy about that—the forces will have to pick up the training costs associated. Those costs should be covered, if the introduction is to be effective.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not know what will happen next year, but if I were to decide to join the police force, I would need a great deal of training in using equipment. Without training and support, new equipment is meaningless. However, there are examples of good practice all over the country. In Bedfordshire, the introduction of personal digital assistants—PDAs—meant that police officers spent 46 per cent. more time out of their stations. So there is every reason to support the introduction of better equipment and to give all officers access to it. It is not sufficient to allow some officers to have such equipment. If it is decided that it will be useful, everyone should have it.
	Finally, because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate— [ Interruption. ] I am happy to hear from all hon. Members on this issue, because it is one that we should debate on many more occasions than we do. I have a problem with grounding rules, or however the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell describes his new proposals, because they would need to be monitored. I am not saying that the suggestion is bad because it was mooted by the shadow Home Secretary. I am saying that we need to be very careful about how we use such powers. It is of course important to take up fresh ideas, but if we merely take young people off the streets and confine them to their homes, they will still have to be monitored regularly by the police.
	I was very interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said about what is happening on Merseyside with Operation Staysafe. Indeed, there is not that much difference between what is happening there and the Opposition's proposals for curfews. I am not against the principle of curfews, but we should consider their use carefully to ensure that police time, although not necessarily the money, is costed. If we are saving the police time in terms of cutting bureaucracy, we need to ensure that that time is used effectively. I hope that when the proposals are fleshed out, we will know the result of that analysis. If the proposals turn out to be good, the Government should accept them—we should be able to build on fresh, new ideas that will benefit people.
	We have just come to the end of our inquiry on knife crime, and the Select Committee took evidence today from a number of witnesses. In private session, we took evidence from a number of young people involved in knife crime who have now been helped by the Prince's Trust. We then took public evidence from the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, who, in an interesting statement to the Committee, said that the criminal justice system was the most expensive blunt instrument that we can use to reduce the level of crime. She was basically saying that by the time somebody got to be a statistic, it was far too late, and that we needed early intervention to prevent that from happening.
	I know that the statement made by the former Prime Minister about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime causes some merriment among the Opposition, but I say to the Government that it is important that we consider the causes and the investment that we can make in providing assistance to those in our education system and our schools, to those who have been excluded and to those in bad housing. It is important that we consider the huge issues that we do not want to tackle, because we are politicians, and the Home Secretary, in particular, has to make instant decisions and provide the public with an instant panacea to deal with the huge problem of the underlying causes of crime.
	Of course, we are getting to the end of this Parliament, with about a year and a half to go before there will be a general election. Perhaps we should have tried to work on this problem sooner, but it is incumbent on the Government and on Ministers, who are listening carefully to what I am saying, to consider the long-term solutions even at this stage, with a year and a bit to go until the end of the Parliament. They should set in stone the values and principles for the future. We are all against an increase in crime, we all want to see more bobbies on the beat and we all want to get value for money. Those issues unite everyone, but communicating the fundamental values to the public so that they can be discussed is important. That is why one of the overlooked recommendations of the Select Committee was that we should have a royal commission into policing to consider why we have police officers, what they do, Parliament's vision for them and how they fit with the law and order issues that we discuss. In grappling with the short-term problems of crime—those problems are clearly short-term, as crime happens daily, hourly and every minute—will the Government also use the opportunity to consider the long term and to lay the foundation stones that will make this society much safer?

Humfrey Malins: As always in these debates, I begin by declaring an interest as a lawyer by background, a part-time district judge and a Crown court recorder. I hope tonight that I am speaking with some experience of the criminal justice system.
	I want to focus on some problem areas and, I think, some solutions. One day 10 or 12 years ago when I was visiting a young offenders institution—in Kent, I think it was—I met a 19-year-old young man, in a cell, looking depressed, tired and drawn. Incidentally, he spent 17 hours a day banged up in his cell. I asked him what he was doing there and he said, "I am here for driving while disqualified." "What's the problem?" I said, "Are you a bad driver? Do you speed? Do you drive dangerously? Do you nick cars? What on earth is wrong with your driving?" "Nothing's wrong," he said, "My driving is good. I'm perfectly okay, but I don't have a driving licence so I get disqualified." "So," I said, "Get a driving licence." It was not unreasonable of me to say that. "But I can't," he said. I asked why not and he replied, "Because I would have to take the theory test." "What's the problem with the theory test?" I said. "I can't pass it, because I can't read and write." That got me thinking—and I have thought ever since—about the link between crime and literacy.
	That is the link for young children from some of the worst sink estates in London and elsewhere. At school, they get behind and begin to fail. Then, because they fail, they cannot keep up with their peers and get angry and bad-tempered. When things go wrong, they are excluded because of their poor performance, and they are out on the streets, where they commit crimes, which leads to their being locked up. There is a link between levels of literacy and school exclusions, and between school exclusions and crime.
	My thoughts have been backed up by an inspectorate of prisons report, which said that some 83 per cent. of boys under 18 in custody had been excluded from school. An even more astonishing figure was given to me by the Ministry of Justice: 52 per cent. of young men in custody—boys up to the age of 21—had been permanently excluded from school. There is surely a link—I hope that the House will understand this—between literacy and numeracy, school exclusions and crime.
	I want to focus for a few minutes on the young offender estate—the prison estate that holds youngsters aged from 13 to 21—and to tell the House a little about my experiences. I talk to many people who work in the young offender estate and ask about the levels of literacy among the boys who arrive at the ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16. One senior official told me that in his judgment, which is backed by many others at that young offenders institution, more than 80 per cent. of the youngsters admitted at the age of 15 had the literacy and numeracy level of an eight-year-old or of someone even younger. What the devil does that mean? It means that there are 15 and 16-year-old boys who basically cannot read or write. They cannot cope, and that has led to frustration and anger. I am not saying that that covers the whole scene, but it is a problem and it greatly troubles the young offender estate.
	What value for money do we get from our young offender estate? What does it cost? The average cost of putting a youngster into the young offender prison estate is £33,000 a year. That is what it costs us. In Feltham A and Feltham B, which are the two young offenders institutions in Feltham, it costs £42,000 for the year. That is a lot of money, and what do we get in value for money? What about the reoffending rates? They are absolutely mind-boggling. Official Government figures show that 16 and 17-year-olds who are released from custody have, respectively, an 80 and 70 per cent. chance of reoffending within a year of release.

David Davies: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but should we not take into account the cost of that reoffending? Would it not often be cheaper, in simple financial terms, to keep somebody in Feltham at £33,000 than to have them committing one offence after another on the streets of London?

Humfrey Malins: I will to come to that. Value for money, for me, means that people come out of Feltham, or anywhere else, and do not reoffend. That, I think, is what will save money.
	Worse still, Government figures show that the 80 per cent. of those released who reoffend within one year do so, on average, four times in that year. Given that people are caught only once in every eight crimes that they commit, nobody can doubt the fact that, in effect, those youngsters are coming out and committing 30 or 40 crimes in their first year. At a cost of £33,000 a year, that is failure on a grand scale.
	What are my remedies and solutions, if any? I have a few, which I want to draw to the attention of the House, and the first relates to literacy and numeracy. When someone arrives at a young offenders institution, on day one—I do not mean month one; I mean day one—a complete assessment of their educational position hitherto and their achievements should be undertaken. If they have been statemented, a full copy of the statement, binding on the prison, should be provided, and the prison should act upon it. Straightaway after that, a plan for that individual offender should be drawn up, showing what he or she must achieve in their time in that young offenders institution.
	I wonder whether hon. Members know how many hours a week people in young offenders institutions spend on education. Would they think that it was six hours a day? Six hours a day spent in education would be fair enough. I will tell hon. Members the answer: Feltham, seven and a half hours a week; Glen Parva, five hours a week; Reading, five hours a week; Aylesbury, six hours a week; and Rochester, three and a half hours a week. Will someone tell me that that is good news? It is not.
	What about being locked up in the cells? How long does one feel that it is a great idea to lock up a young man in a cell each day? Would six, eight, nine or 10 hours be right? Let us look at the figures; they are depressing. At Aylesbury, young people are locked up in the cells for 17 hours a day. That is horrific. What does it do? At Reading, they are locked up for 16.5 hours.
	What about sport? I am old-fashioned, but I reckon that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the value of sport, activity and physical work. I do not just mean PE in a gymnasium. A lot of those young people are pushing iron all day, or half the day or for a couple of hours, and according to the powers that be, all that does is make them stronger, and they can run away faster. No, I am talking about sport, out on the field in the open air. I met a young man who had not seen daylight in four months at a young offenders institution. Where is the sport? How many hours are spent on sport—real sport, team sport and active sport? Does sport help to develop character? I think that it does. People in our young offender estate are doing two or three hours a week on average.
	Perhaps I am a little fanciful when I say that the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme is terrific. It is my pet hobby. I met an employer who interviewed everyone who came to him who had done the DOE. It is not done enough—barely at all—at places such as Feltham, Portland and other institutions. There have been only one or two bronze awards in the past six years, out of hundreds of young men going through the system.
	Here is a revolutionary idea: I really believe that education—literacy and numeracy—is vital, which to me means that short sentences of six, eight or 10 weeks are a waste of time. We cannot do anything with a youngster in that period. All the judges whom I have spoken to say, "For goodness' sake, put them away for nine months, because then you can make some real advances. If a crime is not serious enough for nine months inside, don't bother. Don't faff around"—I am not sure how  Hansard will take that word—"with six weeks, because it's a revolving door; they are straight out, having laid low, and they come out no better."

Edward Timpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other barriers to the prevention of young offenders reoffending is the fact that about a third of them have been through the care system and that there is no statutory requirement for a social worker to visit them while they are in custody, to try to work with them towards a package of rehabilitation, to ensure that they do not reoffend when they come out and find themselves back where they started?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and anticipates a subject that I shall come to in my closing words. He is right.
	In our young offenders institutions, we must focus on literacy and numeracy, but what else? Here is my nuts-and-bolts idea: in the last quarter of the sentence, all youngsters should be moved into a specific resettlement wing. What will happen then? The family will get more involved. Huge amounts of work will be done to arrange housing on release. It is no good leaving a young offenders institution in Surrey and being sent off to bed and breakfast in Slough at the age of 16. What is going on? Resettlement is the name of the game, coupled with the absolute requirement of going into a job. Education on release, housing on release, job on release—those are the things.
	I went to Oakhill young offenders institution, where not one of the youngsters—both boys and girls aged 15, 16 and 17—who had done hairdressing had reoffended after two years of leaving. Oh yes, we can lock them up for ever if we want, but let us get the children literate, get them numerate, get them adding up and subtracting, get them to have a bit of pride, get them fit and well and give them a purpose. Let us give them a little remission, but it should be based on positive, excellent behaviour and real achievement, not just on sitting on their backsides or joining a gang. Let us focus on resettling them into the community, not back where they came from, but into a job or education. Let us put money into that. If we put money into it, we will save quite a lot of money in the long term, and we will be doing absolutely the right thing.

David Davies: I, too, declare an interest as a special constable and a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
	Virtually anyone who takes an interest in justice and home affairs would agree that the crime figures have gone up—unless, of course, they happen to work in the Home Office. But even Home Office Ministers now admit that crime is likely to increase over the next few years as a result of the recession, so we are certainly agreed on that. I personally think that it is very difficult to trust the statistics, whether one uses the recorded crime figures or the British crime survey, which is little more than an opinion poll. It does not take into account crimes committed on people under the age of 16 or property offences, and drug offences are unlikely to show up. So a gamut of offences is unlikely to show up, and the people behind the survey are simply asking a small sample of people, rather than the entire population, to give their opinions about crime, so it is as accurate at best as a political opinion poll. Recorded crime statistics are no real gauge either, because much of the violent crime that takes place on Britain's streets is carried out between young people, who very often do not report it, even if they are the victims.
	If the Government want to get an idea of what is really going on, they could do a lot worse than to ask someone such as Cherie Blair, who has undertaken work with the Street Weapons Commission and found out that the number of people with knife wounds who enter accident and emergency units has gone up by 85 per cent. over the past five years. However, most of those crimes will not be reported to the police, because there is no obligation on hospitals to do so. One of the best things that the Government could do is to ensure that information on anyone who goes into hospital, showing signs of having been either beaten up or stabbed, should be passed to the police. Not only would that help to tackle gang violence, but it could be used to help to tackle the curse of domestic violence.

Phil Woolas: rose—

David Davies: I am happy to give way, unlike the Home Secretary.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. The statistics on A and E admissions and knife crime were, of course, at the centre of the controversy, but we felt that it was right to publish those figures, because of the point that he is making.

David Davies: The Government are right to publish those figures. Some good work is being done by the Government at the moment, and I will come to that before I make too many criticisms, but I shall first return to the picture of crime and follow some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
	All sorts of reasons are given about why crime is so high—as another hon. Member said, it is certainly too high—but I do not accept that poverty is one of them. Of course, one can find a statistical link between poverty and crime, but simply not having money does not cause people to commit crime. Happily, I come from a reasonably comfortable background, although perhaps not as privileged as some. My mother was a miner's daughter. She grew up in relative poverty. She says that there was hardly any crime in her community. My wife is from a family of agricultural labourers in eastern Europe. They live in a block of flats, where there is no crime, no graffiti and people are nice to one another.
	What causes crime? Although this sounds a little old-fashioned, I think that the cause in many cases is a lack of proper family structure, but I take issue with people who talk about single-parent mothers. Such comments are lazy and an insult to the vast majority of people who do an excellent job in bringing up their children. I would never use that term, and I hope that other Members would not use it either. However, we ought to be honest enough to admit that there is a problem in some estates that have high levels of poverty with young people who become pregnant. If we ever talk about single-parent mothers, let us admit that it takes two to tango; there is a single father somewhere who has behaved in an irresponsible fashion.
	We in this Chamber all have relatively comfortable lives and are responsible people, but we all know how difficult it is to get our children to say please and thank you, and to mind their manners. How much harder will that be for somebody with very little education and money who lives on a difficult estate? It will be impossible. Sadly, children who grow up surrounded by crime, drugs and benefits are likely to fall into the system. I do not know whether I put that tactfully enough, but it is true and we all know it. We should be able to address that.
	We need to do more to support schools. It is a cliché, but by the time people are in the clutches of the police, it is too late. We need to be able to tackle bad behaviour before things get that far. That is why we should be doing more to support schools that want to take disciplinary measures against pupils—and not just pupils who walk in carrying knives, or who assault teachers, but pupils who walk in without their top button done up, or not wearing the proper uniform. That way, children will know that there are boundaries and things that they cannot do, and that if they transgress those boundaries, there will be consequences. That message does not get through at the moment.
	I have some experience of the police, and experience of some of the good things that the Government are doing. I do not want to be critical all the time; there are Government initiatives that I fully support. For example, I support greater use of the Taser. I saw the most ludicrous Liberal Democrat press release this morning. It refers to "Taser guns". Clearly, the Liberal Democrats are not aware that a Taser is not a gun at all; it is not a firearm, in the sense that it does not fire a projectile bullet. A Taser is far less dangerous than the baton that all police officers carry. That is why it is possible for police officers to fire a Taser at each other to experience the effects. Nobody in their right mind would stand there while somebody hit them with a police-issue baton, which could be absolutely lethal if it caught somebody in the wrong place. I notice that the press release refers to "children". In their inconsistent fashion, the Liberal Democrats refer to "children" whenever somebody aged between 16 and 18 is involved in the criminal justice system, but to "adults" when coming forward with other ludicrous policies, such as giving voting rights to 16-year-olds, a subject that we will not go into now.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davies: I could not say no, could I?

Tom Brake: I could not stand it any longer; I had to intervene. May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at Amnesty International's report on the use of Tasers, and that he consider, in particular, the number of people who have died as a result of being tasered but who did not present a real danger or threat?

David Davies: I have looked at the Amnesty report, which deals, I think, with America. America has a very different system of policing from the United Kingdom and any other western European state. It is not a system of policing that I would recommend. If Amnesty were to consider the issue in context, it would have to look into how many people would have been shot dead with a bullet by American police officers had Tasers not been available to them. If a 16 or 17-year-old armed with a knife, and possibly high on drugs, came towards the hon. Gentleman, and the only person in the way was a police officer, I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer the police officer to have a Taser than to rely on gas or anything else.
	Of course, the training given to police officers who use Tasers is extensive. First and foremost, however, they are trained not to use them, but simply to show them. When the press release refers to hundreds of people being
	"exposed to the use of Taser",
	it includes cases in which the police officer has shown somebody who is acting violently that the Taser is there and is an option, but has not actually used it. In any case, Tasers all have microphones, which means that the chances of them being misused in this country are very slight indeed. The Government are absolutely right on the issue, and they went about things in the right way; they used a pilot study, and have allowed chief constables to decide on the subject for themselves.

Willie Rennie: As the hon. Gentleman thinks that Tasers are such tame weapons, will he volunteer to be tasered?

David Davies: I would be happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman let somebody wallop him over the head with a baton; that is the alternative that police officers have at the moment.
	What the Government have done on forms is quite good. The stop-and-account form is going, but there is more that they could do. The stop and search form is still very lengthy. I accept that there are situations in which it needs to be fully filled in, but when members of the public are stopped and subjected to a random search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, often the problem is not so much that they find the search intrusive; it is more that they are irritated about the fact that they have to stand around for five or 10 minutes while the police officer takes down all sorts of information, which is often unnecessary. That delays them in getting to where they want to go. The search that is usually carried out is no different to the one that we all experience when we go into an airport. The public are getting used to the idea that a quick frisk is sometimes necessary for their own safety. The issue is the length of the form and the fact that the public are not aware that they do not have to wait for the police officer to fill it all in. Police officers should be encouraged to say, "You don't have to wait, but if you want a record of the search, I am happy to get it for you."
	As I have mentioned before, it is inconsistent that police officers who stop people who are committing offences, who simply wish to talk to a person, or who detain a person so that they can be summonsed for a revenue offence, cannot carry out a quick search. Very often, those people are involved in criminality, and I would change the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow that to happen. If the Minister for Borders and Immigration wants to make a quick hit and get rid of a whole load of paperwork, he could give the British Transport police the power to issue penalty notices for disorder for revenue offences. Transport for London can do so, but the police cannot, which means that they have to get through a whole load of paperwork if they want to prosecute somebody for such an offence.
	To return to the big picture, the problem is not the number of police officers. There are adequate numbers of police officers. The problem is that a small number of people commit so much crime that they take up all the time that should be available to police officers. In 2003, the Carter report suggested that half of all crime in this country is carried out by about 100,000 people, of whom only 15,000 are in prison at any particular time. Every police officer meets those people almost daily. They are arrested; two officers take them to a police station; a whole laborious process is gone through; the person is bailed and is then back out on the streets, and carries out further offences on the following day. That is why we need not more police officers, but more prison officers and prisons.
	I do not accept the comments made about the cost of keeping people in prison. The cost of keeping somebody in a category D prison is about £25,000 a year. Most of the people who go to those prisons are on benefits. It was not I who brought up the issue of cost, but other Members have done so. The net cost of keeping somebody in prison is far cheaper than people realise. I believe that the net cost to the taxpayer of keeping somebody in a category D prison is not more than about £10,000 a year. The cost of keeping them out on the streets committing one offence after another is absolutely horrendous. It is also a huge burden on police time.
	I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. There are two prisons in my constituency, which I have visited. I have also visited other prisons with the Home Affairs Committee. There is nothing like as much work going on in those prisons to help offenders as there could be. What I propose is not dissimilar to what my hon. Friend suggested. Yes, we should put people in prison, and make it clear to them that they should serve their sentence in full. It is a disgrace that somebody given four years in prison could be out in one year and seven months under some sort of early release scheme, and that somebody sentenced to a year in prison will be out after just three months.
	One of the reasons why reoffending is so high is that prison is not seen as any sort of deterrent. A Faustian pact is made; because people are usually in prison for only a couple of months, the authorities effectively say, "Give us a quiet life and you can have your PlayStation and your television. Just don't cause us any trouble," so people spend all their time in their cells. We should get people out of their cells and get them working. We should give them practical skills. That is what happens in prisons such as Usk, which deals with special types of offenders. We should get that sort of culture into all prisons, particularly those dealing with younger people. Remission should not be automatic. Indeed, I am opposed in general to any form of early release. However, if we are to have early release, I would make it conditional on people getting rudimentary educational skills, passing exams and getting some sort of vocational skill that could give them a chance to work in the real world. Unless we start to tackle what goes on in the justice system, crime will continue to rise, and the police will find it harder and harder to cope.

Tobias Ellwood: I am delighted to be able to participate in this important debate. May I start by saying how embarrassed I am that more colleagues are not present in the Chamber to discuss these important issues? I count just one Labour Back Bencher and one Liberal Democrat Back Bencher, who has just turned up. That is an embarrassment to the Chamber, and to the House of Commons. We should show the country a bit more honour when dealing with these issues.
	The first objective of any Government is the maintenance of law and order. Without it there is no trust, no stability and no basis for a civil democratic society to develop. I remind the House of a definition of law and order. It is a state of society where the vast majority of the population respect the rule of law, and where the law enforcement agencies observe laws that limit their powers.
	The Government's obligations are, first, to ensure that the appropriate laws are passed, and to allow the police and the courts to carry out their business fairly. The second objective is to provide the funds to ensure that there are sufficient resources for that to happen, for if law is poorly written or insufficient, it can be exploited by criminal elements. If law is too restrictive, it can place limitations on individual freedoms. Aside from the dictatorial tendencies that that can produce, it can hinder the free market and the potential prosperity of a nation.
	With insufficient funding, police cannot enforce the law or train to understand the new challenges that we face—for example, cyberfraud and terrorism, neither of which has been mentioned in the debate. Cuts in front-line policing are likely to take place. We have heard that time and again from the constabularies. The reason is the recession that we are going through, which brings with it a wave of crime. Large numbers of police forces, unfortunately, are planning to cut thousands of officers. That is the case because the Government do not understand the priorities. I understand that 19 of the 43 constabularies are being forced to cut the number of officers, and that is simply to do with money.
	The budget that has been set for 2009-10 is causing these cuts, with forces having to agree settlements of 2.8 per cent. Twenty of the police forces throughout the country have received only a 2.5 per cent. increase. One of those forces is Dorset's. If we get only a 2.5 per cent. increase in our budget— [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish me to give way? I shall finish the point and gladly give way. If Dorset receives only 2.5 per cent., but has to meet a pay award of 2.6 per cent., it will clearly have to make budget cuts. It cannot pay the police salaries without a shortfall elsewhere. That is why there has to be a reduction in the police force. Does the Minister wish to respond? Silence.

Phil Woolas: I caution the hon. Gentleman about using that tactic. First, if I have understood it correctly, his party's policy would result in a reduction in public expenditure, so the 2.5 per cent. that he mentions would presumably be less. Secondly, does he not acknowledge that the Government have provided above-inflation settlements for police authorities, including Dorset, and does he not further acknowledge in respect of his party leader's calls for devolution that there is a responsibility on the policy authority to balance its books?

Tobias Ellwood: I hate to educate the Minister, who is experienced, but he knows that I was prompting him to answer my question. Instead, he posed three of his own questions, so I go back to the point. If the police are given an increase of only 2.5 per cent. when they have to pay salary increases of 2.6 per cent., there will be cuts. That is exactly what has happened in Dorset, which has one of the best performing but worst funded police forces in the country. We lost 13 officers last year and we are about to lose another 50 posts. That is all because of the cuts.
	About 20,000 tourists visit Bournemouth on a Friday or Saturday night. Is tourism considered in the manning formula? No. All the police working in Bournemouth have to focus on half a square mile in our town centre because no extra support is given to help the police deal with the influx of 20,000 visitors. We in Dorset are glad to host the Weymouth sailing events, but has one extra penny been provided to meet the extra security requirements for such events? Not one. That is another source of pressure on our police, making them resort to cuts.
	As has been mentioned a number of times, law and order is not just about policing. It is also about a way of life and a set of values. Law and order exists to catch those who behave in an unacceptable way, but it should also be about teaching values that prevent somebody from choosing to break the law. Why not prevent criminal tendencies from developing at an early age and stop people committing crime when they get older?
	I pay tribute to the Dorset Life Education bus. That organisation goes around schools teaching kids the difference between right and wrong, and good and bad, making them confront issues and talk about challenges that they may face in future which might take them into a world of petty crime and lead to further crime in their later lives. Unfortunately, that great initiative will have its budget cut because there is not enough money coming from Government. I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that, as the organisation provides an important means of preventing crime and teaching young people.
	Role models have changed so much since I grew up, and certainly since my parents and grandparents grew up. In the absence of proper role models, perhaps as a result of broken families, people look at their television screens, see a premier league football player go up and swear at a referee, and they think that that is how to deal with authority. That is appalling. When they are out on the street and see authority—a policeman, for example—they respond in the same way. We need initiatives to prevent children growing up with such bad habits.
	Statistics have been bandied about in the debate. Cautions are up by 28 per cent. A gun crime is committed every hour in England and Wales, and a knife crime every half an hour. An ASBO is seen as a badge of honour, and we have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in Europe. We also have one of the highest levels of antisocial behaviour, and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) spoke about the importance of prisons and rehabilitation, and the fact that so many people are going to prison and not getting the rehabilitation that they need. It is a horrifying statistic that 92 per cent. of those who go to prison for less than one year reoffend immediately, and about half of all prisoners reoffend. That suggests that they are not being rehabilitated and given the opportunity to do something better with their lives. They are not particularly good at crime as they keep getting caught, but they are never given the chance to do something else. The Government must address that. Instead, they are locking more people up in Titan prisons. There is not enough talk about what happens when prisoners spend time behind bars.
	Time is short, but let us consider other aspects of Labour policy. Extended licensing hours have been mentioned. They have caused a 22 per cent. increase in crime between 3 am and 6 am. Our police have to stay on duty for longer hours and do overtime. That costs Dorset constabulary more money, which is why there is pressure to cut the number of posts. We have heard a lot about the statistics, but I would like to see greater clarity instead of the two systems that we have—police reported crime and the British crime survey. Let us agree on one set of statistics, rather than the embarrassing interchange of statistics.
	We have heard about the important role of police community support officers. I do not doubt that they play an important role, but in Bournemouth, as in every other part of the country, they go to bed at 10 pm. They go off the streets at just the time that Bournemouth starts to get quite vibrant. When our town centres start to pick up, extra eyes and ears are needed. Police community support officers are fine, but why not encourage more special constables? I was in the Regular Army, and I was delighted to see my companions coming from the Territorial Army to boost us when we required support. Why not emulate what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth is doing? Constabularies should be allowed to have as many special officers as they like, because on the big nights—Friday, Saturday and football nights—they need extra police officers, and that is when they could use people who serve part time. Such people need to make ends meet and cannot serve on a voluntary basis, as special constables are made to do at present.
	I do not have time to speak about the important subject of the terrorist threats that we face, which I do not believe our police are able to contend with because of the deluge of other pressures upon them.
	Between 1997 and 2009, the police budget has increased by 40 per cent., yet there has been only an 11 per cent. increase in the number of police on the front line—and the number of those police officers, of course, is now being cut. We have heard that 66 pieces of legislation have been introduced, yet there has been little public confidence in the criminal justice system; there is certainly little faith in our prison rehabilitation system.
	The phrase "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was spoken in a conference speech in 1997. How ironic that, 10 years later, the current Prime Minister said in a conference speech that we should punish crime and prevent it by dealing with the root causes. That is saying exactly the same in different words, and it shows that 10 years later the Government are still saying the same thing. The job has not been done.
	The Government are failing, first, to create the appropriate law and, secondly, to fund the police to enforce the law. Is it any wonder that the majority of us do not feel as safe as we would like in our homes and towns? That is not how the majority of us want to live. We need a new approach to law and order. The Government have had their chance; it is now time for a general election and for the electorate to decide.

Edward O'Hara: I welcome this debate because it defines the division between the Government and the Opposition on law and order. I declare an interest: I have two sons and a daughter-in-law who are police officers, so I live with the reality of policing in my day-to-day existence at home.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who led for the Opposition, said much to no purpose about the cause—I deliberately use the singular—of crime: the "broken society". Let us for the sake of argument ignore the fatuity of the slogan "broken society", which belongs in the same glossary of meaningless political slogans as the "war on terror". Let us concede that society is broken: who broke it? It was the recently acknowledged heroine of the Leader of the Opposition. When in government, she said that there was no such thing as society and pursued policies based on that premise which had the effect of damaging the lives of the very citizens who make up society. We are still living with the consequences.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was light on the causes of the damage. That was because his party's policies then—and, as far as one can discern them, they will be its policies should it ever come back into government—prove it guilty as charged. What did the hon. Gentleman offer to tackle the problems? Not a word. What we need is action, and action requires resources. The Conservatives, of course, are committed to cutting resources. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) offered some interesting solutions, but they require resources. I assume that he will be in dialogue with the shadow Chancellor—perhaps that should be the shadow shadow Chancellor—about his proposals.
	By contrast, the Government offer not gimmicks, as was the accusation, but action. On knife crime, they offer education together with enforcement, and it is effective. As was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), the Government have offered more police. They have offered more police community support officers, antisocial behaviour orders, social exclusion orders, spot fines and curfews. In my area, all those measures are being used to effect.
	I referred to Operation Staysafe in my intervention; it would not be possible without police on the streets. I quote Deputy Chief Constable Bernard Lawson of Merseyside:
	"Despite the fact that many young people have never offended, youth crime and anti-social behaviour are major sources of public concern to neighbourhoods...Operation Staysafe allows the early intervention by police and support services with young people to prevent those youths becoming involved in criminal activity or becoming victims of crime themselves. It can help to identify reasons for the young person being on the street late at night and intervene where necessary to protect our most vulnerable."
	That is practical action, and it has proved effective in Merseyside this past weekend.

Celia Barlow: Brighton and Hove also took part in Operation Staysafe at the weekend, and it proved effective. Having been out with the Sussex police youth team on Friday evenings, I can say that prevention in respect of kids being on the street can be very effective—for the children themselves, and for the local community.

Edward O'Hara: That is a corroboration of my experience of the effectiveness of Operation Staysafe on Merseyside.
	Things can be done only if police are on the beat. As I said, I have two sons who are regularly on the beat and they do not spend time indoors warming their toes. Indeed, I went inside the Arctic circle last weekend and I borrowed a pair of long johns from one of my sons. He needs them on long winter nights as he polices the streets of Liverpool.
	The Opposition offer only cuts. I know what my community wants—not the Opposition's peculiar mixture of soft nostrums, toothless rhetoric and the hopelessness of slogans such as "broken society", which disguise their bankruptcy with regard to making society safe for our citizens. My community wants a Government who will work with and for our fellow citizens in tackling the antisocial behaviour that affects the quality of life that my fellow citizens deserve.

Anne Main: In the few short minutes that I have, I should like to draw the Government's attention to Flycapture, a well-thought-out initiative that has unfortunately not been well executed. The Minister is frowning—perhaps for the same reason why many in my community have been frowning. Flycapture involves the central recording of fly-tipping in various constituencies. Fly-tipping blights many rural constituencies. With National Farmers Union representatives, I went to my local police county headquarters and attended a summit on this very matter. I find it disturbing that the county council, the police, the district council, the Gypsy and Traveller liaison officer and others involved in dealing with various aspects of fly-tipping clearance were unaware of the Flycapture system and unaware that there was central recording. Will the Government look into the system, roll out it out further and agree that local authorities need to come to a co-ordinated approach, so that we can crack down on rural crime and fly-tipping?
	Many people in prisons have mental health issues—something that has not been particularly touched on in this debate. I am concerned that many in prison should have had much more care in the community and help with their mental health problems before they ended up there. When such people leave prison, they are often in a worse state than when they entered it. The Government should address that problem and ensure that resources go into communities to make sure that, as far as possible—as far as it can be controlled—it does not happen in future.
	I should like to pay tribute to the Muslim community, particularly in St. Albans. It is looking at various issues, including minimising extremism, terrorism and the radicalisation of Muslim youths. I met Muslim leaders in my community on Friday. They are setting up Ummah UK, a community group to pull together Muslim groups, teach them about terrorism and extremism and how to resist it, and encourage them to resist the increasing use of drugs and alcohol that, unfortunately, dogs some ethnic minority communities. The group aims to work with the community to give a positive role model and promote positive activities. I congratulate the Muslim community in my area on looking to help policing in my community and on keeping its young people actively engaged with others there and with keeping their lives on track.
	I, too, am concerned about the policing numbers reported in  The Times today. I completely concur with those who have said that we need to have confidence that the figures are completely accurate.

Crispin Blunt: When the Home Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), she remarked on the consistency of his remarks with a speech that he gave yesterday to the Local Government Association. Well, she is going to hear a consistent message from him. She began the substance of her remarks with a reply to a charge about gimmicks, which my hon. Friend had not made; some sensitivity there, I think. With a history of eye-catching initiatives, tsars of one sort or another and policing by press release substituting for a coherent approach, her sensitivity is hardly surprising. However, I enjoyed her quote from Sir John Major at the party conference in 1993, when he said that we should
	"condemn a little more and understand a little less".
	She is right to note that there has been a change of tone associated with the arrival of my hon. Friend as shadow Home Secretary.
	The Liberal party spokesman helpfully made the case for early intervention, as in the proposal on grounding that my hon. Friend is developing. He and I, as new members of the shadow home affairs team, were flattered by the charge of being Napoleonic and Caesarist. I will allow him to choose which role model he would like to follow, and I will be happy to take the other.
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was correct about the importance of this debate, and correct to be sceptical about the effectiveness of apparent police numbers. I noted that he agrees with us about the removal of targets from policing, for which we have been asking for a very long time.
	It is always instructive to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who presented extremely powerful and stark examples and statistics to the House. The failure to address educational opportunities in young offender institutions is a disaster in terms of value for money and opportunities missed for the people concerned. I commend to the House the exciting proposals to incentivise prison governors to make them accountable for reoffending rates. Our shadow justice team have some extremely interesting things to say about that, and the sooner they cease to be the shadow team and are able to put those things in place, the better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) delivered his usual robust message about boundaries and authority, with the benefit of his experience as a special constable and on the Home Affairs Committee. However, the Government do not need to take that message from him alone. He has strong support from the chief constable of South Wales, who said, in a conference that was supposed to be closed but from which her remarks ended up being reported:
	"in many of our larger cities, in areas of extreme deprivation, there are almost feral groups of very angry young people...Many have experienced family breakdown, and in place of parental and family role models, the gang culture is now established. Tribal loyalty has replaced family loyalty and gang culture based on violence and drugs is a way of life."
	She went on to deliver a damning critique of criminal justice policy, saying:
	"in an age of cost-benefit analysis...there is no appetite for solutions that have no visible return and no patience for any which will not bear immediate political fruit."
	We have heard in this debate the sorry catalogue of the Government's failure to deliver on law and order after nearly 12 years in office. Sixteen years after a young and ambitious shadow Home Secretary set out his analysis of the need to tackle crime and its causes, we see a society in which youth disorder is rife and violent crime up by a staggering 88 per cent.  [ Interruption. ] It is not untrue. The Lord Chancellor should not intervene from a sedentary position, because these are his own Home Office statistics, about which there was an intervention on the Home Secretary. Perhaps he might choose to explain why more than 50 knife crimes are now being recorded every day, and fatal stabbings are up by a third, at an all-time high.
	Tony Blair's most famous pledge—the one that marked him out as new Labour and helped him ride to the Labour leadership—was never delivered. What a contrast with the inheritance that Labour received. Tony Blair's then opposite number, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was the first Home Secretary in decades to reverse the trend on rising crime. By force of will— and, of course, with the benefit of some pretty special advice—he changed the culture of the Home Office. In much the same way as, 10 years earlier, Baroness Thatcher challenged and changed the assumptions of the British establishment that their job was simply the civilised management of Britain's relative decline, my right hon. and learned Friend challenged and changed the perception of those at the Home Office that their job was simply to try to manage, as best one could, inevitably rising crime levels.
	These lessons we have learned. That is why I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members pay careful attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, not only in introducing this debate but in the speech that he made yesterday to the Local Government Association. The remarks introducing him made by the Leader of the Opposition—the former special adviser to the last Conservative, and last successful, Home Secretary—also bear examination. Change is coming. Focus will be given to the Home Office and the police. Addressing the causes of crime will belong to the rest of Government; the Home Office will address crime. The police will be transformed from the centre, with a straightforward mission to fight crime and empowered by clear local accountability.
	We have also learned what is not the answer. If legislative activism, money, eye-catching initiatives and bureaucratic accountability were the answer, it is inconceivable that the trend of falling crime inherited by this Government would not have continued. There have been 25 policing or crime Bills since 1997, with the latest major Bill, the Policing and Crime Bill, making its way through Committee as we speak. This endless stream of legislation might keep shadow Ministers engaged as they try to meet the challenge of getting up to speed with the latest legislative ideas in the much reduced time available to Parliament to examine them properly, but the overall effect has been highly doubtful. Such has been the blizzard of new legislation that it is well known that the judges are struggling to keep up. They are spending more time on legal refresher courses than ever before, with courts having to close as a result. If judges are struggling with this legislative blizzard, what on earth do Ministers think it is like for the police, who are expected to police the 3,000 new offences thus created?
	During the economic good times, the Government failed to keep our streets safe or to provide the prisons required to lock up the criminals who stalk them. The gloomy economic outlook that we face today means that the challenges facing the police over the coming months will get worse. Indeed, as the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said in response to a leaked Home Office document, it is "blindingly obvious" that some aspects of crime increase in a period of recession. It was reported in  The Guardian yesterday that Superintendent David Hartshorn, the head of the Metropolitan Police's public order branch—Britain's most senior police officer with responsibility for public order—raised the spectre of riots, with people who have lost their jobs, homes or savings becoming "foot soldiers" in a wave of potentially violent mass protests. Today,  The Times highlights the fall in police numbers as the ugly reality of Government finance starts to make itself felt. The mismanagement of the economy, like the mismanagement of the police and criminal justice system, has left people more vulnerable to crime and left our society more vulnerable to social disorder.
	The Government are no closer to delivering on crime today than when they first came to power. Whichever way Ministers spin figures on crime, it is clear that violent crime is up, robbery is up, gun crime has nearly doubled and knife crime is on the rise, with fatal stabbings at an all-time high. Labour has failed to empower the police to tackle the criminals, and has left some of our town centres virtual no-go areas for law-abiding citizens. Instead, despite years of criticism from the police and from the Opposition, the police are still spending a fifth of their working day dealing with paperwork. Talk about wasting police time! The huge growth in the use of discretionary cautions means that when police officers do encounter criminals, it is far less likely that the criminal will ever end up in a court, let alone a prison cell. Despite all the rhetoric on knife crime, the Government still refuse to apply a presumption that carrying a knife will mean a prison sentence. Despite initiative after initiative and an unprecedented volume of criminal justice legislation, the net result after 12 years of this Government is that people feel less safe, in parts of our country antisocial behaviour has become the norm, and the innocent citizen feels that his own liberties have been curtailed to no useful purpose.
	It is time for a Government who are serious about tackling crime head on by releasing police officers to deal with the criminals, and time to mend the broken society that has allowed criminal behaviour to become endemic in our towns and cities. I commend the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, who, in speaking to the Local Government Association yesterday and in the House today, has demonstrated that he will be a worthy successor to the last Home Secretary who turned back the tide on crime—another inheritance that has been so scandalously squandered by this wretched and unhappy Government.

Phil Woolas: Is it my turn now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? My apologies for not being quick to get to my feet, but I was listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) with some sadness. I shall explain why, but before I do so, I pass on apologies from the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) who could not be at the Dispatch Box because of Committee duties. That is why you will have to put up with me this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I was looking forward to this debate because I thought that I would find out about the views of hon. Members across the House, and the views of those on the Opposition Front Bench. We did achieve the former, and we heard some very thoughtful speeches, to which I will respond in a moment—but sadly, what we heard from the Opposition Front Bench was a repeat of a speech that was delivered yesterday. I do not know what the rules and procedure of the House are concerning informing the House first, but if we have an Opposition debate it is important that we find out something new, instead of the single transferable speech that we heard, not from the Liberal Democrats, but from the hon. Member for the front page—sorry, the Front Bench.

Chris Grayling: You've used that joke before as well.

Phil Woolas: Yes, and it was funny then, and it is funny now. I am going to keep on using it, because it is obviously hitting home.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made a thoughtful speech. He described our procedures as a legal whirling dervish. He described the shadow Home Secretary as dangerously Napoleonic and Caesarist—language often heard in "The Dog and Duck" in Eastleigh, I am sure—and he accused my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of populist punitiveness. I can assure the House, having worked closely alongside the Home Secretary, that she does not go in for populist punitiveness. She has yet to tell me what it means, but I am sure that it was well intended.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, made a thoughtful speech on the analysis— [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend is in his place, as he always is. He made a thoughtful analysis of the figures on police numbers, and got behind those figures to the issue of the allocation of police time, which is the really important point. The figures that he pointed out with regard to Gloucestershire and other police authorities were important. He talked about equipment compatibility, and I assure him that the National Police Improvement Agency is looking at that issue. He raised the case of Lincolnshire, in particular. We also thank my right hon. Friend for his Committee's report, and his work on early intervention is important. This was one of the biggest gaps in the speech of the shadow Home Secretary. I was looking forward to his analysis of the causes of crime, but detail on that subject was thin on the ground. The Chairman of the Select Committee, on the other hand, gave us a thoughtful analysis of early intervention.
	The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) gave an extremely interesting speech, clearly based on his experience. He put forward practical solutions focusing on how people in custody, particularly young men—he was right to refer to them—should be given more instruction, education and opportunities when they leave custody. There was a strange coming together of his ideas and those of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who spoke from his experience of being a special constable. On these Benches, we recognise and applaud him for that, despite our party political differences. It is good for Parliament that Members undertake such duties, and there are Members in our party who do so as well. There was an interesting coming together of the two analyses. They were different in their premises, but similar in their conclusions, and they concerned what more can be done to give young men—not just young men, but those young men in particular—that added work experience. The hon. Member for Monmouth was good enough not to play yah-boo politics, which some have done in this debate, and to acknowledge the good things that have taken place. That gave his criticisms greater force, and we take those points on board.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) stood up for his constituency by calling for more resources for Dorset, and I now turn to that point. The resources provided to Dorset police authority have gone up by 47 per cent. since 1997, which is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will come to this morning's report in  The Times in a moment, but police numbers in the hon. Gentleman's authority area have increased by 179, to 1,463 officers, under this Government.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: Could I move on? It is discourteous not to respond to all the points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), given his family experience—his sons are police officers—quite rightly pointed out the rather trivial nature of the Opposition slogan "the broken society", which simply serves to talk down our country. This Government have never claimed that there are no problems in our society; of course there are—but my hon. Friend pointed out the end result of the Opposition's policy. Opposition Members should look in the mirror in the morning and ask themselves a question. If they talk about reining in the horns of the public sector and reducing public expenditure, they cannot in all credibility come to this House and call for measures that would involve more resources, or criticise us for not providing them— [ Interruption. ] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) says that they can do that, because they are in opposition.
	In a brief speech, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) made three or four important points. I will certainly ask my colleague the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to look at the point she made about the fly-tipping project in her area. She made some important points about mental health, and the Government's initiatives in that area should be commended, but it is right that we recognise that issue. She also praised the Muslim community, and she was right to do so.
	The hon. Member for Reigate read out his speech extremely well, which is all I can say about it. I was disappointed that he did not respond to the analysis that hon. Members in various parts of the House had put forward. The Opposition should think hard about this point. They take the slogan "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" from Tony Blair, but they need to provide an analysis based on the facts of the situation. Just briefly, let us look at the resources. I assume that the article in  The Times is coincidental to this debate, but again I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on his front page this morning—well done.
	Let me read out the figures for the seven forces that were criticised in the papers this morning. The article refers to Durham; I remember signing off a 30 per cent. increase for Durham police authority when I was a local government Minister; I think that the Prime Minister had some interest in that at the time. There has been a 49 per cent. increase in the number of Durham police, with 288 extra police staff. In Gloucestershire there has been a 52 per cent. increase, with 228 extra police staff. In Gwent there has been an increase of 91 per cent., with 415 extra police. In Hampshire, there has been an increase of 79 per cent., with 1,045 extra police. In North Yorkshire there has been an increase of 101 per cent., with 527 extra police staff. In Surrey, in the local county force of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, there has been an increase of 136 per cent., meaning 994 extra police staff. In South Yorkshire the increase was only 59 per cent., with 764 extra police staff. The Opposition call for more resources, but condemn the very Government who have brought them about.
	I come to the analysis put forward by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the speech that he was kind enough to read out to the House following his speech to the Local Government Association yesterday. It really is not good enough to come along and bandy about statistics when every independent authority and every independent provider of statistics has shown that crime has fallen under this Government. It is not true to say that because we have changed the methodology of reporting violent crime, violent crime has gone up. That is the politics of 1984, and I condemn the Opposition's motion and commend the Government's amendment.
	 Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 228, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived .
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the unprecedented 39 per cent. fall in crime since 1997, with burglary down by 55 per cent. and violence by 40 per cent; notes that the chance of being a victim of crime is at an historic low; further welcomes the record numbers now entering and staying in drug treatment services; further supports the drive to tackle gangs, including measures in the Policing and Crime Bill to introduce injunctions on gang activity; further welcomes the preventative, educational and enforcement action taken to tackle knife crime, with those carrying a knife now more likely to be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned, if found guilty; considers that the Government's determination to tackle criminal and antisocial behaviour is demonstrated by the record levels of investment in policing since 1997 and increases in the numbers of police officers and police staff to an all-time high, as well as the Government's drive to cut police red tape to free up more time for police officers to spend on the beat; is concerned at any proposal to make sudden cuts to the Home Office budget that could lead to reductions in police officer numbers; commends the Government's determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with local communities in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour; and deplores talk of a "broken society" as a counsel of despair.

British Agriculture and Food Labelling

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that British consumers are entitled to know exactly how and where the food they are eating is produced and that clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients is required to achieve this; further believes that this will level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show their preference for home-grown food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental protection; notes that the rate of self-sufficiency in the food which Britain can produce itself has dropped substantially since 1997; further believes that voluntary labelling by food retailers has failed to deliver the transparency that consumers require; and calls on the Government to introduce a mandatory country of origin labelling scheme for meat and meat products without further delay.
	We have called the debate today because of a simple principle: people have a right to know where their food comes from. Currently, meat that is processed here, but imported, such as bacon, sausages and meat in ready meals, can be labelled "British". We believe that that is a dishonest system, which misleads consumers, undermines attempts to improve animal welfare and disadvantages our farmers. Nothing in current food labelling regulations defines how much British involvement is required before food can qualify as British. A combination of European Union directives, United Kingdom legislation and domestic regulations has created an environment in which consumers are confused and misled by the labelling of their food.
	Last week, my office visited some major supermarkets and found several products with no country of origin information. Many others were simply labelled, "Produced in the UK", which might lead somebody to believe that the meat was from this country. We found a Birds Eye Great British Menu roast beef meal, which admitted on the back that the beef was imported—that is not very British. We even found a Marks and Spencer sandwich, emblazoned with the "nation's favourite sandwich" and a Union flag, which admitted on the reverse, in rather smaller print, that the corned beef came from Brazil. Those buying a Tesco Disney-branded children's roast dinner, labelled "Produced in the UK", would not know that they were feeding their children with chicken from Thailand. They would know that only if they took the time to call the customer helpline.
	If people wish to eat imported chicken, that should be their choice. Consumers should be free to choose food from any country. We are in Fairtrade fortnight, and we acknowledge that many people choose to support producers in developing countries. After all, British farmers have important export markets, too. However, real choice requires real information. Clear labelling would empower consumers, not restrict their options. Two thirds of pigmeat imported into this country might have been reared in conditions that are banned here. The current rules force our farmers, who have high welfare standards, to compete against cheaper meat products that can still be labelled as British. Shoppers who wish to endorse higher animal welfare standards by buying British may end up unintentionally backing more cruel methods of production overseas. That is why we think that a system of clear labelling is essential, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the public.

David Taylor: We on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have looked into the issue a great deal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he went to the car park of the Arundel Co-op—if there is one—on Saturday with a petition urging people to endorse, for instance, higher welfare standards for pigs, they would be pushing him aside to sign that petition, but that seconds later the same hands that had gripped the pen to sign the petition would be reaching into the chiller cabinet for the cheapest cut of pork, almost no matter what it was? Labelling is important, but it is not the only part of the equation, is it?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is indeed a Co-op in Arundel, which I have been into. People should exercise choice. If there is a section of the public that wishes to buy cheaper meat, those people should be free to do so, but they should know where that meat comes from. However, at the moment they do not necessarily know that. Last week we conducted an opinion survey through ICM, a reputable pollster, which found that a majority of the public would support British production if it produced food that was either the same price or even more expensive. Only a minority said that it would prefer the cheaper produce. Nevertheless, it is quite understandable, particularly in the current economic climate, that people may wish to exercise the option of cheaper food, but they must know where it comes from. Of course they should be free to choose. The same survey conducted by ICM showed that 87 per cent. of voters agree that the Government should ensure that the country of origin is displayed clearly on food.

David Drew: There is not a great deal in the motion with which I can disagree; indeed, I have supported cross-party attempts to get better labelling, so I would support that. However, the one thing that is missing is something about the sourcing of food locally. One way that the public can definitely know that whatever they buy and subsequently eat is what they believe it to be is by knowing that it is produced locally. Should there not have been something in the motion about locally produced food and the way farmers' markets have shown us the way on what people can expect?

Nick Herbert: We on the Conservative Benches are strong supporters of locally sourced food. In fact, there is a farmers' market in Arundel as well. Many people choose to support such markets and to buy food from such outlets, because they wish to support local producers. I strongly endorse that choice, which is good for our domestic producers and local farmers. That choice would be exercised more if there were more transparency about where our food comes from generally because that would raise public consciousness about the origin of food, which is important.

Alan Simpson: Just to help the hon. Gentleman on that point, does he understand and accept that, in the controversy about labelling, references to local production and farmers' markets is part of what is being disputed, in some cases before the courts, because of misleading labelling in precisely those terms?

Nick Herbert: I am not sure that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I will come to the extent to which a labelling scheme would be lawful under EU law. We on the Conservative Benches believe that it would be. I cannot believe that sensible legislation would get in the way of transparency in labelling. That is surely what all of us, in all parts of the House, should want. Indeed, it should be a fundamental consumer entitlement.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. It seems to me, looking at the motion and the Government's amendment, that this is a bit of a non-debate. The issue is important in respect of consumer information, but it seems odd for a debate in the House of Commons. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that a much more important issue in relation to food is food security, particularly with climate change in the world. We are not doing enough about security of supply in the United Kingdom. That is the debate worth having in the Chamber, not this one.

Nick Herbert: I note that the hon. Gentleman's judgment about whether the motion is worth while did not stop him from making one of his customary interventions. I will turn to the issue of food security, but the two issues are, in fact, linked. If we have rules that effectively discriminate against British farmers, that affects our ability to produce more from our own resources. That is an important link.
	I fundamentally disagree that the issue is not important. Not only is it important for consumer confidence in food; it is extremely important for the interests of British producers, who have suffered a great deal. That is particularly true of pigmeat producers, who have suffered declining sales in recent years because the public are, frankly, being duped into believing that they are buying British when they are not. There has been a strong public response to the campaigning on the issue by people such as Jamie Oliver and others. The hon. Gentleman would find that there is public interest in the issue not just in rural areas, but across the country. I therefore do not accept that it is not important.

Andrew George: In view of the Conservatives' enthusiasm for transparency in the food chain, I would be interested in the hon. Gentlemen's view on the Competition Commission's inquiry last year, which found that supermarkets transfer excessive cost and risk to suppliers and which recommended the establishment of a grocery sector ombudsman. If such transparency were introduced in the food supply chain, surely that would assist him and his party in achieving the kind of objectives that he is advocating today. Will the Conservatives therefore support the recommendations of the Competition Commission inquiry into the supermarkets?

Nick Herbert: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman's support for an ombudsman. Last week at the National Farmers Union conference, I said that our major supermarkets needed to treat British producers with more respect, and that proposal would be one way to make that happen. However, I do not see the direct link, which the hon. Gentleman sought to draw, between that proposal and transparency. A sensible scheme for transparency will require the supermarkets to participate. Indeed, I will make the case that a voluntary scheme has not proven possible because of the unwillingness of the major supermarkets to participate. That is why a compulsory scheme is, I regret to say, now necessary.

David Drew: I pay due tribute to my friend in this regard, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The Competition Commission inquiry into the grocery trade was hamstrung by the unwillingness of suppliers to give evidence, even in camera. That indicates the unfairness of the system. All parties ought to be standing up to the supermarkets to get greater fairness and a genuinely level playing field. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree to that.

Nick Herbert: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should be directing his comments to the Government and asking them what action they propose to take in response to the commission's proposals. We have said that it is time for action, and that it is important both that the interests of consumers and producers are protected and that a proper balance is achieved.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that although the consumer and the supermarkets are one half of the equation, the other half is the public sector, which is a big purchaser of food? He mentioned the pig industry just now, but hardly any British pork is bought by the Ministry of Defence for the Army. Does he agree that the public sector—the MOD, the health service and the education sector—could do much better in its efforts to purchase British food?

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a disgrace that the public sector procurement of British-produced food remains so low.
	In the ICM poll to which I referred earlier, when the public were asked whether they believed that food in hospitals, schools and the armed forces should be produced to British standards or whether it should be sourced at the cheapest cost to the taxpayer, 90 per cent. agreed that it should be produced to British standards.

Jeremy Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Nick Herbert: No. I have been generous in giving way and I want to make some progress.
	The Government's own food watchdog, the Food Standards Agency, states in its best practice guidance:
	"Consumers expect meat labelled 'produce of' to come from animals that have been born, reared and slaughtered in those countries and we consider this to be good practice to label accordingly."
	Unfortunately, that is simply guidance on good practice; in the real world, poor labelling persists. Despite the FSA guidelines and clear evidence that consumers are being misled and want to see country of origin information clearly displayed on food, too little has been done.
	The Government say that they are aware of the problem. Last week, the Secretary of State pledged to
	"stamp out unclear, inaccurate or misleading labelling".
	The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), even went on Jamie Oliver's recent programme, which did so much to inform consumers about the ways in which they are being misled, to agree that the current situation is a "disgrace". I agree with her. I regret, however, that warm words have been followed by little action. Consumers, retailers and food producers have been frustrated by repeated promises to introduce voluntary schemes, which have clearly not worked.
	As long ago as 1998, the then Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), promised to take action. A Ministry of Agriculture press release declared:
	"Consumers win as... retailers agree on labelling".
	The following year, the Minister came to the House to proclaim his three objectives, and said:
	"I want to give clear unambiguous information on the real place of origin, not place of processing or place of slicing; I want to clamp down on misleading place of origin descriptions; and I want to make further progress by lobbying the European Commission and other member states for a system of clear country of origin labelling."—[ Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 366, c. 1126.]
	That was 10 years ago; 10 years on, Ministers are saying exactly the same thing. Despite repeated promises, there is no adequate voluntary agreement and there is no acceptable deal in Europe. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State has now decided that the way forward is a reheated voluntary agreement at home and yet more negotiations with the Commission.
	The Secretary of State told last week's National Farmers Union conference that he had met representatives of the supermarkets to discuss this voluntary agreement. Perhaps the Minister of State will update the House about the progress of those talks, as there is little sign of any action. What of the stores outside the big four supermarkets, which account for around £40 billion-worth of grocery sales every year—some 35 per cent. of the total? Any voluntary scheme that includes only the major supermarkets would cover less than two thirds of sales.
	I am afraid that after 10 years of promises, we on the Conservative Benches are sceptical—a view shared by the farming industry—about the chances of meaningful voluntary agreement with the retailers, because those retailers are not willing to provide the information that the public want. The Irish pork scare last year showed the drawback of unclear labelling. Supermarkets withdrew Irish meat in case it had been contaminated, but there was no guarantee that it had not been processed somewhere in this country and was sitting in our fridges with a British label on it.
	We live in an age of consumer choice and transparency. Anyone who stands in the way is on the wrong side of the argument. The British Retail Consortium has claimed that in the labelling of food,
	"it's the process rather than the origin that's important".
	I completely disagree: the production is important, but consumers expect to know the origin of meat, not just where it was last processed. A recent survey found that an overwhelming majority of the public—89 per cent.—felt that a meat product labelled as British or produced in the UK should mean that it was from an animal reared in Britain.
	There is no suggestion that food retailers are systematically attempting to mislead the public, and the FSA guidelines exist to prevent that, but unclear labelling that is perfectly permissible under current rules does, in fact, allow consumers to be misled. That is the effect, whether it is intended or not. It is because the retailers—or I should say, some of the retailers—do not accept the need for country of origin labelling that voluntary agreement has proved impossible. It is noticeable, for instance, that Marks and Spencer has accepted the need for compulsory country of origin labelling.

Richard Bacon: There is a further point to consider. Does my hon. Friend agree that the retailers will accept country of origin labelling when they think it will give them a premium, as sometimes happens with English milk, but they will not when they want to sell an own-brand product and they want to disguise the fact that the meat comes from Hungary or Brazil, for example?

Nick Herbert: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is evidence that some retailers have been willing to move towards more transparent labelling in respect of premium products, but on the value labels, they have not been so willing. I hope that our survey will give them more confidence that people would support British production across their product ranges, but in any case, I do not think that we should resile from the principle that the consumer should know where the meat comes from, irrespective of the price, and then make a choice. We should stand by that principle.
	Opposition Members thus believe that the only course now is to adopt compulsory country of origin labelling. In the first instance, we believe that it should apply to meat and meat products, where the instances of misleading labelling, and their effects, are particularly serious. Beef labelling regulations first introduced in 1997 in reaction to BSE have proved workable. In general, all beef and veal must already indicate the country of origin, by reference to the place where the animal was born, reared and slaughtered. The time has come to extend that practice. So last week, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I launched the honest food campaign to ensure that imported meat cannot be simply processed in this country and then labelled with a British flag. We propose to introduce a food labelling regulations (amendment) Bill to make honest labelling of all meat and meat products a statutory requirement. It echoes a number of similar private Members' Bills that have been promoted by Conservative Members over the past few years, most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon).
	To date, the Government have resisted those proposals. I urge them to reconsider and to join a growing consensus in the belief that change is needed. As well as the farming industry and trade associations representing the livestock sector, animal welfare groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming are also supporting the objectives of the honest food campaign. Let us be clear: those organisations are not supporting another voluntary scheme; they are calling for compulsory country of origin labelling.
	Our plans would follow similar approaches taken in America and Australia. Both countries recognised that their consumers were being duped by the existing packaging and the natural demand for the correct information required labelling rules that had legal force. Their experience shows that the cost of better labelling will be negligible. In the United States, a study put the increased cost of origin labelling for poultry at as little as 0.01 per cent., while the EU has said that small businesses consulted would expect a positive impact from compulsory origin labelling.
	Of course, new regulations need to be proportionate. That is why we are proposing in our own draft Bill that the regulations will require the labelling of meat ingredients when they represent 10 per cent. or more of a product. So, for example, a typical ready meal would be covered, as most consumers would expect, but not a pepperoni pizza—unless the manufacturer decided otherwise. I believe that this proposal strikes the right balance between the consumer interest and what is practicable.
	In their amendment for tonight's debate and elsewhere, the Government have claimed that what we are proposing, even if desirable, is not possible under EU law. We disagree. Our Bill is not about restricting trade. It will simply require UK processors and retailers to label their products appropriately. Under EU regulations on the marketing of foodstuffs, member states can require the labelling of origin when the absence of such information could mislead or confuse the consumer—and our consumers are being misled.
	Ministers claim what we are proposing has been tried already. They point to a recent attempt by the Irish Government to introduce country of origin labelling for poultry, pig and sheepmeat, which the European Commission rejected. The Irish Government may not have been able to convince the Commission, and they were not helped by the fact that the British Government did not support them, but we can produce the evidence that UK consumers are being misled. The latest surveys of public opinion show that. For that and other reasons, we have received legal advice and we are confident that what we propose is permissible. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government believe that it is not.
	The Irish Government went to the Commission and at least made the case; they stood up for the interests of their consumers and their farming industry, while other countries have succeeded with labelling schemes within the EU rules. The Commission approved the mandatory origin labelling for Spanish asparagus in 2003 on the ground that consumers would otherwise be misled. This is about political will. The job of a Government who care about their farming industry and consumer choice is to do everything possible to put the case and, if necessary, to challenge and change the rules.
	Under this Government, our nation's reliance on imports has increased by 8 per cent. There have been major declines in the production of cereals and meat. There has been a widening food, drink and feed deficit, which stands at more than £14 billion. The pendulum has been allowed to swing too far away from domestic production. Using imports as a substitute for produce that could perfectly well be grown here is a waste of potential. Increasing self-sufficiency in the food we can produce ourselves should be a strategic priority.
	Of course food security must not be an argument for a retreat into protectionism or central planning, but we need properly to assess the role that we want our farmers to play. Conservative Members want to enable our farmers to do what they can do best: produce high-quality food and respond to consumer demand. They cannot do that effectively if the rules governing labelling leave them disadvantaged in the marketplace. Compulsory country of origin labelling is right for Britain and with the EU negotiations under way, now is the time to take a stand.
	The Government's plan for a voluntary agreement on food labelling with retailers has passed its sell-by date, and they must stand up for British consumers and farmers. Other EU countries fight for the interests of their consumers and their farming industries within the trading rules. It is time for the British Government to show the same spine. It is time to end misleading labelling and to enable consumers to choose British food with confidence.

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
	"considers that British consumers should have the information that they need in order to make the choices they want when they buy their food; notes that the European Commission has rejected a recent proposal from the Irish Government for national mandatory country of origin labelling for meat and meat products; believes that clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients for meat and meat products would level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show a preference for food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental protection; agrees that where supermarkets and retailers comply with the Food Standards Agency's guidance on country of origin labelling that this is to the benefit of their consumers; and further believes that the best way to back British consumers and British producers is to support the Government's calls for tougher and clearer country of origin labelling across Europe."
	I am grateful to the official Opposition for initiating the debate today. After all, it is national potato day and pancake Tuesday, so it is appropriate that we are having the debate. I depart from the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), as I think this is an interesting debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to his new post. I hope that he enjoys a long and happy career as Opposition spokesman. If his performance today is anything to go by, he will do extremely well. I look forward to crossing swords with him on many occasions.
	I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about this, but may I express apologies from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is out of the country and unable to return for the debate? As the hon. Gentleman will know from his visit to the National Farmers Union conference last week, agricultural production and the sustainability of that production are a hot topic in discussions in the industry. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech to the NFU:
	"The best way for us to safeguard our food security in the 21st century will be through strong, productive and sustainable British agriculture, trading freely with other nations."
	I shall address the debate rather narrowly, although there are many issues that we could discuss under its title. I think that it would be helpful to the House if I addressed some of the immediate points, particularly around the issue of labelling.
	We take agricultural production very seriously and we want British farmers to produce as much food as possible. That is not about targets for domestic production or self-sufficiency. We are a trading nation. Some of the food that we grow we export—nearly £12 billion-worth in 2007. The food that we import—mainly things that we cannot grow here—is really important too. This is about productive, efficient farming, the higher yielding seeds, better irrigation and more sustainable use of fertilisers that have transformed agriculture in parts of the world.

Robert Goodwill: The Minister talks about trading freely, but what about trading fairly? If production methods used on the continent are illegal here but give our opponents an advantage, surely people should be made aware of that.

Jane Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—but there are points of difference, which I wish to explore and explain. I have read the Conservative proposals in detail and they form a well-written document, if I might be allowed to say so, but I have some quite stringent criticisms to make of it, which I will come to.
	In meeting demand today, we must ensure that we do not destroy our ability to feed ourselves tomorrow. This is not about either environmental sustainability or production; it has to be both. The general public are becoming increasingly interested in the issue of labelling and the origin of foods, and I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the public should have confidence in the labelling system, so that when they make the choice to buy British, for whatever reason—if they want to support British farming, for whatever purpose—they know that they are buying British produce.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister will know that some of the best arable livestock and some of the best dairy farming in the UK are to be found in Shropshire, but the best way to pay tribute to Shropshire farmers is to support the motion and allow transparency so that UK customers, and indeed European customers, can make an informed choice about buying British, which includes Shropshire.

Jane Kennedy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about Shropshire, but in a moment I will come to why there are distinct and real differences between the positions described in the motion and in the amendment.
	The issue of labelling has recently been played out in the media, too, and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was right to highlight Jamie Oliver's investigation of pig welfare standards in Europe. The programme was broadcast in January and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I participated in it, although it was filmed a little while ago. As I said to the NFU conference, Jamie Oliver is to be congratulated on shining the spotlight on an area that deserves to be brought into focus. I hope that today's debate will continue to raise awareness and improve the public's understanding of the issue.
	My views and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are perfectly clear: we want people to be able to buy British and to support British farmers. The British public care about what they eat. Imported food is good and important for variety. It also reflects the cultural diversity of the UK, but by buying British, consumers support the industry and, especially in the pig industry, higher welfare standards. The Conservative party passed the key welfare standard change—the abolition of sow stalls. We implemented that change, which means that our pig farmers are right when they say that they are at a disadvantage. That is why the Select Committee report that examined the issue so carefully and in such detail was so timely. Its conclusions are important.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister will be aware that none of the bacon fed to our troops is British. What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence and her colleagues there to ensure that that changes?

Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to that point in a little while. I agree, and I have said on a number of occasions that we are improving the ability of the public sector to use its power to support British farming. However, there is further work to do and I am engaged in it. Later in my speech, I will describe exactly what we are doing.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister will be aware that 10 years ago I introduced a private Member's Bill on this very subject. What is really causing me concern is the fact that she does not seem to exhibit even a frisson of concern that, for 10 years, the Government have not only been trying, but have been warned of the consequences of the disadvantage being deliberately placed in the way of British pig farmers. The competition have had derogations and been able to flood our market with cheaper-sourced meats. That is unacceptable. Surely she must recognise that now is the time to act, not to speak.

Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, the issues facing pig farmers go far wider than labelling. That is why the approach that I am taking—bringing the stakeholders around the table to talk about the range of issues that need to be identified—will allow us to work out a programme of action that I believe will achieve improved confidence in our pig industry, which is what the representatives of the industry say they want to achieve.

Andrew George: Does the Minister accept that her stated objective of encouraging, or indeed enabling, consumers to purchase British-produced goods is closely linked to the Competition Commission's inquiry into supermarkets? If farmers and growers cannot maintain viable business structures because of the way in which the supermarkets treat them through the supply chain, that desirable objective simply cannot, over time, be fulfilled. What does the Minister's Department say, and what does she say, in response to the commission's inquiry, and is she taking the issue up with her colleagues in other Departments?

Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Competition Commissioner will report to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. However, I am taking a close interest in the issue. I have asked for up-to-date advice so that I can ensure that the commissioner's recommendations can be pursued with the full seriousness that they deserve.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who referred to fairness? If fairness were displayed to our farmers, they could not only produce more wholesome United Kingdom food, but produce more from the land, which is good for the consumer. Moreover, they would have the money that they need in order to maintain the countryside that is so important to us.

Jane Kennedy: I agree that fairness is extremely important, and that is why the Competition Commissioner's recommendations are so important. They address what is a clearly defined imbalance of power between the retailers at one end of the food supply chain and the producers at the other. That returns us to a point made earlier about the need to ensure the security of the whole food supply chain. Although we are focusing on labelling tonight, I consider it incumbent on me to examine all the other factors in detail. We need a programme of action to deal with those factors as quickly as possible, so that we need not wait for movement on the European Union's part and can do what we can within the United Kingdom first.

Andrew Murrison: The right hon. Lady said that the problems facing the pork sector were not all to do with labelling, and that is clearly true. However, does she remember telling Jamie Oliver that misleading labelling was a disgrace, and does she remember undertaking to meet the challenge of remedying that problem? She seems to be backing away from that, and trying to downplay the importance of labelling.

Jane Kennedy: On the contrary. I shall now set out what I consider to be the difference between our wish to conduct a practical search for real solutions to a serious problem and what is, as I hope to demonstrate, a posture adopted by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.
	This issue is essentially about choice. It is about consumers' ability to make informed and practical choices. People want to know, and have a right to know, where their food comes from. If that is to happen, we need to find practical solutions that are proportionate to the problem and do not result in unnecessary and burdensome regulation which could impose additional costs within the supply chain—costs which, in all likelihood, would eventually affect either farmers' margins or shoppers' wallets. That is what is wrong with the Opposition's proposal.

James Paice: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: I will, but I want to embark on the detail of my speech.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. Can she tell us what extra costs would result from our proposed legislation, in comparison with the costs of implementing a voluntary scheme? Both would require full traceability and the labelling of products.

Jane Kennedy: I will come to the differences, and the flaws in the proposal advanced by the hon. Gentleman's party. Let me quote from a document that I found on the website.

Rob Marris: Which website?

Jane Kennedy: The Conservative party's website. The document says that the Conservatives would
	"write into law a new definition of country of origin for meat and meat products so that it means what consumers rightly assume",
	which would form part of a food labelling regulations (amendment) Bill.
	I accept that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has received legal advice. It has been published, and I have read it with interest. However, according to legal advice that I received as recently as today in order to test the ideas presented by the Conservatives, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is certain—not almost certain—to fail the legal test that the European Commission would set.

Nick Herbert: rose—

Jane Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to explain the basis of that legal advice before I give way? His proposal is very widely drawn. It attempts to encompass all meat and meat products. Does he accept that, while our aim is broadly the same, we in government must plot a course that will genuinely bring about change for the better, rather than leading to the raising of false hopes among livestock farmers and easy wins in the short term? That could happen tomorrow, if only the political will were brought to bear. The hon. Gentleman has used that phrase twice, once to the National Farmers Union and once here today.

Rob Marris: In the interests of consumers such as ourselves, could my right hon. Friend publish the legal advice that the Government have obtained?

Jane Kennedy: I will investigate the options. I certainly want to share as much of it as I can with the taskforce with which I shall be working early in March.

Nick Herbert: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: Yes, because I said that I would.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister. She has cited legal advice which I hope she will publish, but why have the Government not proposed a country of origin labelling scheme to the European Commission? That would enable us to hear the Commission's view on the merits of such a scheme. Is it not clear that EU legislation enables a country of origin labelling scheme to be adopted domestically when consumers are being misled? Surely the Minister agrees that consumers are being seriously misled, so why is she not trying to put that point to the Commission?

Jane Kennedy: That is precisely the work that we are doing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when a case can be made to demonstrate that customers are being misled, that case should be made.
	As for the second prize for the worst example—the Marks and Spencer sandwich that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—he did not appear to be quarrelling with the labelling, which is quite clear. Marks and Spencer does not seek to hide the fact that the sandwich—a corned beef sandwich—is made with Brazilian beef. That is stated on the label, and is reasonably well printed. It is the packaging and the marketing to which the hon. Gentleman objected, and in that respect I entirely agree with him. It could, I think, be argued that when such a claim is made and the marketing is carried out in such a way—the advertising is another issue—the country of origin should appear in the same field of view. Otherwise, there is a potential for consumers to be misled. I want to establish whether there are options allowing us to encourage clarity of that kind. When such encouragement does not work— [Interruption.] I shall explain in a moment why we will need to approach the European Commission to make that change.

Nick Herbert: rose—

Jane Kennedy: I will give way one last time.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister. Does she agree that, while Marks and Spencer's other labelling is entirely commendable, the emblazoning of the Union flag all over the front of that sandwich makes the labelling misleading? Does she agree that—as I have said to Sir Stuart Rose—the packaging should be re-engineered so that it does not mislead consumers?

Jane Kennedy: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives of eight of the big retailers and representatives of the British Retail Consortium. We discussed the issue as recently as three weeks ago, and we continue to raise it.
	I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about that particular sandwich. I think it is clear from all the evidence that he has seen, from the evidence that the Jamie Oliver programme uncovered and from the experience of anyone who shops in supermarkets that British retailers know the value of the Union flag as a selling point for food. Precisely because it is of such value to them as retailers, British customers ought to be able to rely completely on the fact that, if it is being used to market in such a way, they understand what they are purchasing and are not being misled.

Richard Bacon: Does the Minister accept that a simple way out would be to put to the Commission the point that although it claims that there should not be country of origin labelling unless consumers might be misled, the possibility of consumers being misled would be reduced to zero if all products across the EU were clearly labelled by country of origin? Should that not be a compulsory, EU-led scheme, driven by the British Government?

Jane Kennedy: I am not sure that that is the case. If we were to have all country of origin information on all products, what would we do with, for example, a pizza that is entirely made in the UK but that might be made with imported wheat or cheese or pepperoni sausage? How much of that would have to go on the label? I do not agree that in all cases all the products need to be displayed on the label. If we start to consider narrowing that down, we come closer to the Opposition proposal, but I believe that that would fail the challenge that the European Commission would set it, as I have described.
	That does not, however, mean that there might not be a case for having a more narrowly drawn definition. The Spanish asparagus case was mentioned. I understand that that was tinned Spanish asparagus, and that the European Commission has allowed it as an exception—as a demonstrably very narrowly drawn exception. Therefore, if we are to make progress and persuade the European Commission that there is something that we can do in the UK because of the danger of consumers being misled, we must be much smarter in how we do it and not use the blunderbuss approach suggested from the Conservative Front Bench.

Andrew Murrison: Could the right hon. Lady not then apply for an exception for British pork—in the same way that the Spanish have applied for an exception for their tinned asparagus—given the uneven playing field that has been introduced since 1999 because of animal welfare standards? That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Why has she not done it?

Jane Kennedy: It is certainly something that I will be looking into.  [Interruption.] Well, it is something that I am absolutely committed to seeing whether we can achieve, because I think it will help British consumers and will allow them to use the power of their spending to support British farmers, and I think they deserve that.
	There may be options for action in the UK or England for some produce. I am not yet in a position to start to debate the detail of what those options might be, but there is certainly no simple solution. I want to explore them further. The taskforce that I am establishing to examine the changes taking place in the pigmeat supply chain is the forum to do that, as there will be immediately available to it the advice of the Food Standards Agency, farmers, slaughterers, processors and retailers, all of whom have agreed to join the taskforce.

David Heath: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that, at the very least, it should not be possible to pass off meat produced from livestock raised in one country but that is then slaughtered, butchered or processed in another country as the product of that latter country? To my mind, that is simply passing off incorrectly the origin of that meat, and that must be covered by the EU rules.

Jane Kennedy: That is within the scope of the discussions that are taking place in the European Commission about how we as a Community should improve the laws on labelling, in order to make sure that misleading labelling is not used in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
	Let me respond to the accusation, which has been repeated, that nothing has been done in 10 years. First, the FSA has been created, and the guidance it has issued has brought about real changes in the quality of labelling. That has clearly opened up the possibility of further criticism, which has been trenchantly made today—

Richard Bacon: rose—

Jane Kennedy: I am conscious that I am taking up a lot of time, but I will give way again.

Richard Bacon: The right hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. The FSA updated its guidance in July. Will she confirm that it is correct that that updated guidance made no specific mention of country of origin labelling?

Jane Kennedy: The guidance was updated again in November. The FSA is quite clear about what should be included in any origin claims. In fact, it is because of FSA influence that support has been won across Europe for precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We should give full credit to the FSA for the influence that it has brought to bear in winning support for the improvements that are beginning to flow through and for there now being such debates in Europe.
	If the option for changing the rules for labelling on a UK basis only becomes viable, I will pursue it, but I am aware—as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs should be—that such UK options must find the approval of the European Commission. His proposals would have to find its approval.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Jane Kennedy: May I just finish this point? Given the Conservatives' famously robust view of Europe, how do they propose to get their new law through such scrutiny? They are completely isolated in Europe, and already lack support for their key policies, such as renegotiating a ratified treaty of Lisbon. On that key policy, they are supported by the Dutch animals party, the French hunting, fishing, nature, tradition party, Sinn Fein and some communists.  [Interruption.] On renegotiating the treaty of Amsterdam regarding the social chapter, they have no support from any quarter— [Interruption.]—and they do not like it when they are reminded of it. In both such instances, there is no support for their position from any of the 26 member states.  [Interruption.] This is an important and serious point: how will their proposal on food labelling fare any differently from these two other no-hope options that are key policy objectives of the Conservative party? I believe that its policy statement is a dishonest position because it cannot be achieved. I will want to study it carefully to see if there is any merit at all in it, but I am not convinced that there is.
	We all agree that consumers need clear information to enable them to make informed decisions, but the Opposition's simplistic solution of introducing new domestic legislation is not the silver bullet that they are asking this House, the farming community and citizens to believe it is. They claim that there will be no costs incurred, but on what do they base that claim? Can they be sure that businesses and families who are struggling to make ends meet would not be adversely affected? How will they get their plans on to the statute book without a costly, complicated and drawn-out row with the European Commission, which has already sent back less demanding proposals from the Irish Government?
	Our approach is more proportionate; it is based on what is deliverable. Even a narrowly drawn UK option that might succeed would take years to succeed, and I am not prepared to wait for that. I am prepared to make the approaches that are necessary and I will do so, but I want improvements now. More importantly, I want to see what can be delivered and for it to be delivered as quickly as possible.

David Drew: One thing that has not been mentioned is genetically modified food and its labelling. We know that there is a clear embargo on GM-produced food, but there is far less clarity about animals that have been fed on GM feed and subsequently come into the human food chain—they have to come from abroad. Will the Minister clarify the labelling position in that regard?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is possible for consumers unknowingly to buy meat products of animals that have been raised on GM feed. If consumers have a concern about that, they can follow particular supermarkets that have a clear policy on it. It is the subject of another interesting debate, although not one for today. British farmers will hope that we return to the subject in more detail on another occasion.

Rob Marris: Speaking of a debate to which we may return on another occasion and given that this one is about British agricultural production and food labelling, can the Minister say a little about security of supply? As I have said, that is a growing issue, given that climate change is accelerating worldwide and will adversely affect food production both in countries from which we have hitherto received food and in this country. Security of supply is vital and it is a growing issue, to coin a phrase.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right to mention security of supply, which covers at least two areas. One is the need to ensure that we farm in a way that is environmentally sustainable in the long term—that is one way of ensuring food security. A second is the need to understand what is happening in some of the sectors to ensure that, as we mentioned when discussing the Competition Commission's concerns, there is not an undue level of power and that the risk in a food supply chain is not borne disproportionately by one part of it.
	That is why I hope that drawing from the model that the Dairy Supply Chain Forum has used for many years and using the same approach in the pig industry, following on from the Select Committee's recommendations, will allow us to understand the pressures within the whole food supply chain, so that we can bring about a more sustainable and secure sector, within which confidence grows. The farmers, in particular, tell me that they fear that confidence levels are not as good as they should be.  [Interruption.] The representatives of the British pig industry also tell me that it is a very vibrant industry where a lot of good work is going on and that we should be careful not to talk the industry down to the point where new blood is reluctant to come into it because people do not have confidence about security.  [Interruption.] All the points being raised from the Conservative Benches are precisely why we need to examine that detail.
	The way forward that we are proposing will not impose unnecessary burdens on the supply chain. While we will work with our international partners to deliver clear and unambiguous labelling provisions across the Community, we will engage with the whole domestic supply chain to deliver improvements before EU regulations come into force. What that means in practice is working with the Pig Meat Supply Chain Task Force—I have mentioned it more than once this evening—which I announced at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting last week, to identify practical solutions to improve labelling, not just for retail sales, but in the hospitality sector. I anticipate that the work the taskforce will do will be able to be applied across other sectors of the food chain.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been pressing retailers to use the Food Standards Agency's best practice guidance across their ranges. That guidance was extensively consulted on, reviewed in November and is already a tougher standard than that set down by the European Commission. We will continue to hold processors and retailers to account, while recognising the valuable strides that they have taken to tackle this issue.
	We have helped Departments to buy local food—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) rightly emphasises the importance of local food. Did the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs even know that anyone who has milk in their tea or eats an egg in a Department is supporting the British food industry? That is not to say that I am complacent and that there is not more to do. All the practical measures I have mentioned will have a greater impact on helping consumers back the British farmer if they want to do so than the hon. Gentleman's costly and bureaucratic solution. That is why I urge the House to support the Government's amendment and reject his ill-thought-out proposals.

Tim Farron: It is important to know the truth about what we buy. The description on the outside can be technically accurate, but a million miles from reality. For instance, in 1997, some people thought that they had elected a Labour Government. If I may pour some opprobrium on myself, I can say that in 1995 I led my then 11-year-old younger brother along the righteous path of supporting Blackburn Rovers on the prospectus that they were premier league champions and therefore the best team in the country—all technically true at the time. It has since led to significant disappointment, albeit character building.
	Accurate labelling of British meat produce, however, actually does matter. It matters because consumers have the right to know what it is that they are eating. As things stand, lambs imported from France but slaughtered in the UK can be passed off as British produce. Pig carcases brought in from Ireland and processed into sausages in the UK can be sold as British sausages, and milk from Belgium that has been churned in the UK can be sold as butter from Britain.
	When consumers make their choices, they should do so with the fullest possible range of information. The current situation is not acceptable, because it effectively allows shoppers to be conned into believing that they are buying British when they are not. It is not simply a matter of wanting to buy British for the sake of it. Indeed, many consumers use buying British as a reliable proxy for shopping ethically. That is the case because British standards of animal welfare, and of environmental impact in farming, are among the highest in the world. Of course, buying genuinely British produce means reducing food miles, and significantly cutting the carbon emissions involved in food production.
	Mandatory country of origin labelling would allow us to make those ethical choices with confidence. Of course, investing in the best possible animal welfare standards and in the highest environmental specifications is not cheap, as has already been pointed out. Even with mandatory labelling, we still face the problem of the produce of other countries gaining a competitive advantage from lower standards. Equalisation of standards across the EU to British levels is crucial if we are to tackle climate change, improve animal welfare standards and give our farmers the benefit that they deserve for taking the lead in ethical food production. But the Government are wrong if they think that that is all we need to do. If I were permitted to merge the Conservative motion with the Government amendment—taking out the odd word, of course—we would have a perfectly presentable proposition, but even combined, those solutions would be weak and inadequate.
	The Conservative motion is fine as far as it goes—there is nothing in it to disagree with—but I would question why the concentration is simply on country of origin labelling. If we are to empower consumers, we must ensure that they have information on environmental impact, such as the carbon, energy and water use impacts of the produce, as well as country of origin. Given that British produce incurs fewer food miles and has a more benign environmental impact, environmental labelling would also be a boost for British farming. We surely do not want some kind of complicated, expensive and bureaucratic multiple scheme. The answer must be a simple and straightforward labelling system that incorporates all that information.

Richard Benyon: I note that the hon. Gentleman refers to himself as the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Can he therefore tell us what he meant by calling in the  Western Morning News some months ago for proper regulation of prices in the food chain? Is that a Liberal Democrat prices and incomes policy?

Tim Farron: We believe in having a proper supermarket regulator to ensure that we do not just have the surface intervention that we have talked about so far in this debate. We need effective intervention to create fairness in the market, on behalf of farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine. It is a shame that the Conservative motion has overlooked the environmental aspects of labelling. It must be a blind spot for the party.

Stephen O'Brien: I am intrigued by the idea that the hon. Gentleman would like to support both the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. I want to understand how he makes the choice between our words, which call
	"on the Government to introduce a mandatory country of origin labelling scheme"
	and the Government's, which call
	"for tougher and clearer country of origin labelling across Europe."
	The Government do not use any reference to introduction or to the word "mandatory". Is the hon. Gentleman supporting each side in the same way?

Tim Farron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he clearly misheard me. We will vote for the Conservative motion and against the Government amendment, for the reasons that he has given. The point is that there are many good things in the amendment; the Government talk about the need for fairness and equivalence across the European Union, and that was what I meant in talking about points with which we would agree.

David Heath: I am very concerned by what I heard from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). It seems that the Conservatives do not agree with the point that I have repeatedly made and that many hon. Friends have made: there is a need to regulate the supply chain in the dairy industry. Every dairy farmer whom I know in my constituency wants to see that, but the hon. Member for Newbury does not.

Tim Farron: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about farm gate prices and the exploitation of the farmers whom the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) claims to represent and to stand up for. We are talking about a visible hand in the marketplace to ensure fairness—something we are not hearing from the other two parties.
	A year ago, in DEFRA questions, I asked the Secretary of State to introduce a mandatory food labelling scheme, and I know that I was not the first to do so. The problem then, and now, is that without a regulator to enforce such a scheme, it would have limited impact. British farmers struggle because of the economic system in which they operate. Clear labelling would give consumers choice and allow British farms to take proper advantage of their high standards, but it would not change the reality, which is that our food market is dysfunctional and hopelessly unfair.
	British consumers and British farmers are disadvantaged by the overwhelming market power of the huge retailers and processors. In response to this situation, others have called for a relatively passive market ombudsman, as we have already discussed. The person in that position would oversee the market and investigate complaints. Like the motion, that is okay as far as it goes, but I want to see something far more powerful. In other words, I want to see the introduction of a supermarket and food market regulator that will ensure fair prices and fair practice with regard to all produce—a strong and enforceable code covering the full range of grocery outlets, backed by a robust and proactive enforcement mechanism that would allow a labelling scheme such as the one suggested by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to work. The work of a proactive regulator would also prevent powerful players in the market from abusing their power.

James Paice: I think that the House deserves a little more clarity about what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Can he confirm that the role of that regulator is far in excess of that recommended by the Competition Commission? The hon. Gentleman has referred repeatedly to fair prices, and does he agree that they can be achieved only if the regulator has the power to intervene in setting prices? That is a throwback to the policies of the '60s and '70s rather than a policy of today. Will he make it clear whether it is Liberal party policy?

Tim Farron: I can make it absolutely clear. We are talking about ensuring that farmers get a fair price at the farm gate for their produce. If that means intervening and outlawing unfair exploitative prices paid by large companies on the processing and retail sides of the food chain, we stand absolutely full square on the side of the exploited British farmer. We are not paying lip service to one problem that is relatively easy to solve; we are dealing with a systemic problem that is affecting British farming.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the choice is between an interventionist system of the kind that he has described and leaving the common market? That is the choice.

Tim Farron: That is a very interesting point. Clearly, in a free society, we surely should be able to intervene to ensure fair prices for those people in the marketplace who are least powerful. That is crucial. I will come to food production and food security later, but if we are to ensure that security, we must have some means to guarantee it. The hon. Gentleman is essentially saying that we must accept the over-weaning power of certain sections of the food market and that we can concentrate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to intervene, but I trust that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to labelling.

Tim Farron: That is indeed what I am proceeding to do.
	To recap, we will support the Conservative motion, but it is important to highlight that we believe that accurate food labelling should be only one aspect of a more comprehensive approach to ensuring a fair market in food production. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, to whom I pay tribute and whom I welcome to his new role—he made a strong and sound case for his motion—stated his belief in mandatory intervention, but that belief appears to start and end with accurate labelling. Indeed, he stated at the NFU conference last week that
	"a culture of responsibility is better than a culture of regulation".
	That sounds chillingly similar to the approach of his shadow Chancellor and, indeed, the Prime Minister ahead of the banking crisis, but I agree with Peter Kendall, the NFU president, who said that
	"when there is proven abuse of the voluntary approach, and it has been tried and tested and failed, that tells me that regulation is urgently required".
	The Conservatives have not chosen to debate British agriculture, as has been mentioned, and the wider fundamental and systemic problems that face our industry; instead, they have chosen to discuss a very important symptom of those problems. For what it is worth, the Conservative proposal on this issue mirrors ours—congratulations to them—but although we will support the motion, I cannot help but observe that it simply represents the party of the free market complaining about the consequences of the free market.
	We need regulation that will help our farmers and consumers, and we need to be consistent in our demands for fairness throughout the market. How many of us go shopping and seek out Fairtrade coffee in one aisle, before heading down another aisle to buy milk to put in that coffee sourced from an exploited British dairy farmer who is paid less for that litre of milk than it cost them to produce it? I am passionate about ensuring fair trade for coffee growers in Colombia and for dairy farmers in Cumbria.
	Of course, consumers can achieve a lot by buying Fairtrade produce and by buying British produce, and that is why it is so important that we have a comprehensive and mandatory food labelling system to empower consumers and to give them the information that they need to exercise choice, but consumer action is not enough. Farmers and consumers have the right to expect that their Government will be on their side, and now is the time to intervene and to take sides.
	We take the side of farmers and consumers, not big business. I am not anti-market; but in food production as in banking, we want the market to be our servant, not our master. When we have huge fluctuations in production, short-sighted profit chasing by over-powerful supermarkets and farmers struggling to survive, the market is not working.

Rob Marris: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say something about the operation of the market and food security? It seems to me that the operation of market in the UK is not doing as much as it should for food security, which is a relevant issue when we are discussing British agricultural production.

Tim Farron: That is absolutely correct, and the hon. Gentleman makes the point well. Ensuring that we have a form of fair trade for British farmers means that we maintain capacity in our farming sector and that we do our bit to ensure that we have food security within our borders and, indeed, that we contribute to production across the world. I will attempt to reach those points very shortly.
	If I can crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall cite two great liberals. Adam Smith famously talked about markets reaching equilibrium through the movement of the invisible hand in the marketplace. He suggested that markets will naturally ensure a fair and appropriate outcome, but I am afraid that that works only if we assume that markets are rational and that all the players are equally balanced in power. The increasingly fashionable John Maynard Keynes would, of course, disagree. He said:
	"The market is able to remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent."
	How many people whose homes have been repossessed, how many unemployed workers and how many British farmers can identify with that statement today? The debate is about British agricultural production and food labelling, but if we are not careful, there will be barely any British agricultural produce left to label.
	In the past two years, we have lost 900 million tonnes of milk production capacity. That represents a staggering 8 per cent. drop. On a human level, that is two dairy farmers leaving the industry every day. As we have heard, the British pig industry has shrunk by 40 per cent. in a decade. We now import 81 per cent. of our bacon and 45 per cent. of other pork products. Some 70 per cent. of that imported pork was reared in conditions that would have been illegal in this country. Our historical uplands are shedding skilled hill farmers at a rapid rate. I am thinking of valleys such as Longsleddale in my constituency; of the eight working hill farms still there, only one has a possible line of succession. Not since the black death have we seen such a reduction in our food production capacity. Incidentally, given the Government's decision to flout Sir Iain Anderson's recommendations and not upgrade the Pirbright facility, who is to say that the black death might not be back on the agenda some time soon?
	Of course, the reduction in farming capacity after the black death was a consequence of—how shall I put it?—a reduction in demand for food, but the Government are overseeing a terrifying drop in farming capacity at a time when the world population is set to increase by 50 per cent., and demand for food is set to double in the next 40 years. Is it not madness that because of an inability to make markets work for us, we are allowing ourselves to become dependent on environmentally damaging imports—on the produce of developing countries that ought to be concentrating on feeding their own impoverished populations?

David Drew: I shall be brief. Despite my feelings about the EU, I point out that surely at the core of the issue are the World Trade Organisation rules. The whole point about those rules is that they are rigged in favour of big farmers who produce genetically modified organisms. Surely that is something that we must fear.

Tim Farron: I certainly agree that the rules are, by and large, rigged in favour of powerful players. It is the same on the international stage as it is here on the British stage. We can talk about fair trade all we like, but we will mean it only if we are prepared to take action on the issue. That is why a supermarket regulator is so important.
	Surely it is madness if our inability to make the market work for us means that we allow our food capacity to drop like a stone. The Government are presiding over a reduction in food production capacity, but can they not even at this stage learn the lessons from the Conservative failures of the 1980s, when the Conservatives allowed much of our manufacturing industry to disappear? The foolishness of that is only too apparent now. It is not too late for the Government to intervene to support British agriculture and ensure security of food production, world-class environmental and animal welfare standards, and a thriving future for our farmers. Introducing a mandatory labelling scheme is one step that they could take, and I appeal to them to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that although there is no time limit on Back Benchers' speeches tonight, time is running out. It would be a good idea for all hon. Members who want to catch my eye to bear in mind the amount of time left, so that we can allow as many colleagues as possible to contribute.

Alan Simpson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to have caught your eye, given the number of Labour Back Benchers who want to speak. Like the Minister, I want to speak about two aspects of the motion: the specifics of the case for mandatory labelling, and the wider and larger issue of food security. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has quite properly raised the subject in every Member's contribution, so I want to declare that I will address that issue.
	It is important to acknowledge that across the world, virtually every political party in every Government has attempted to shelter behind a misleading definition of country of origin. In some respects, the origins of that definition are to be found in the rules of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the WTO. That definition describes the country of origin as the last place of substantial change.
	The public are well aware that if, for instance, someone buys a Vauxhall car that is claimed to have been made in Britain, it should not surprise them if the spark plugs in the car come from somewhere else. That would not mean that the substantial change in the construction of the car did not make it British. However, if a product such as a Cumberland sausage is marketed as a British Cumberland sausage, the substantial change, as far as the public is concerned, is not to be found in the origins of the recipe or the origins of the assembly, but in the origins of the meat.
	We have allowed ourselves to be caught in a confusion which is exploited by those parts of the international food processing chain which seek to dominate and exploit food markets, rather than to pursue sustainable food markets. The misleading of the public is incorporated into the global rules that are creating much of the chaos and food insecurity that we urgently need to address. It is wrong to blame a Labour Government for 10 years of inactivity and an absence of progress.
	The absence of progress goes back at least 42 years. I do not blame the Minister for not being aware of that, as it was clearly before she was born. In 1966—the last time an English football team won the World cup—the Food Standards Committee was asked to examine the abuse of the words "fresh", "natural" and "pure". In the discussions and deliberations that followed, from that time until last year, the matter was bounced backwards and forwards in a series of consultations that sought to secure a voluntary agreement on the meaning of the words.
	In 1987, a trading standards survey looked at how supermarkets and shops were treating those labels. It found that 79 per cent. of the shops were downright misleading and 11 per cent. were extremely dubious. Only one in 10 of the marketing claims had any truth in them. That illustrates the difficulty with the voluntary path. It has taken a prodigious amount of time to get next to nowhere. We must recognise the urgency of the matter, not only because the public have a right to know, but because outside the House there is a drive and desire on the part of the public to shop ethically and sustainably where they can. In many cases that means a relocalisation of their food agenda. I welcome that, but we should be aware how far we are from such a process.
	I shall refer to two reports. The first was produced at the beginning of last year by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming. It is called "Ethical Hijack" and catalogues the systematic attempt to mislead the public with claims that are not true. Earlier I mentioned farmers markets. There was a case last year arising from the fact that Heinz introduced a soup called farmers market soup, even though none of the ingredients had come from a farmers market.
	When that was challenged at the Advertising Standards Authority, the case failed. It was claimed that the contents came from farmers, and that the product was being brought to market, so technically it could be called farmers market soup. That did not equate with the terms as they would be understood by the public. Real definitional ambiguities are being exploited by those responsible for the labelling in order to deceive the public. It is an act of marketing deception.

David Drew: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that case. I know a bit about it, as I was one of the complainants. We got down to whether there should have been an apostrophe and, if so, where it should have gone. The problem was that Heinz rose above the fray, so to speak. Its representatives said, "Look—we're just going to do it." There was no comeback whatever; without going through a whole court process there was no possibility, apart from appealing to its better judgment, of getting the company to rethink. It refused to do so.

Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that intervention, because it strengthens the point that I am trying to make. There should be a mandatory framework, mandatory definitions, mandatory penalties and a mandatory time frame. The last thing that any of us have is the luxury of another 42 years of meandering around, systematically going nowhere.  [Interruption.] None of us has that luxury, although we may wish to.
	There has been a terrible sense that labelling has been abused in this country. I feel sorry for Patrick Holden, the director of the Soil Association, who in June 2007 found himself denounced in a  Guardian article. The newspaper had put a trail on the locally, organically grown carrots from his farm in mid-Wales, which were purchased by Sainsbury's supermarkets for sale. It found that the carrots had been taken to a super-packer in East Anglia and that by the time they finally reached the shops back in mid-Wales, they had travelled 230 miles—which stretches the notion of "local" beyond credibility. The same applied to carrots bought at Waitrose, which were labelled as having been selectively chosen from "local growers"; those growers happened to be local in Italy. So, too, with bags of parsnips: they were labelled "Organic English", but sourced in Scotland. Watercress, labelled as having been grown by the sparkling chalk streams of Hampshire, had been imported from Portugal.

David Taylor: It's Hampshire on the Algarve!

Alan Simpson: There are long rivers in Hampshire.
	All that takes us into the world of the absurd, and there is a real danger that the discrediting of the labelling process discourages the public from acting ethically, as we desperately need them to.
	In 2006, the National Consumer Council did a survey called "Greening Supermarkets". It found that fresh vegetables labelled as seasonally available in the UK included leeks from Kenya, watercress from the USA, carrots from Egypt and cabbage from South Africa. All that went on behind the guise of misleading labelling. That is what happens when we try to drive changes through a voluntary process. It is a licence to cheat. Supermarkets compete with each other for volume of sales, and when one starts to cheat, the pressure for others to join them increases. We have to engage with the case for mandatory labelling—not only for UK meat, but for UK food produce in general.
	I want to go on to a second report, about a bigger issue. The Soil Association has just produced "An inconvenient truth about food", which takes us into the most difficult and challenging food security issues faced in the UK. Historically, UK Government policy, as espoused by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury, has been fundamentally ill conceived on the issue. The problem goes back not 10 years, but to 1817, when David Ricardo wrote "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation". He set out the theory of comparative advantage; the example that he used was the trade between the UK and Portugal. Since then, the UK has hidden behind a presumption that it did not really matter what we produced ourselves, because there would always be plenty of food "out there"—wherever "there" was. Britain was a trading nation, we should make a virtue of that, and if that meant a decline in UK farming and food production, well, "C'est la vie".
	We are now faced with a fundamental change in the economics and politics of world food supply. Since 2006, there has been a steady escalation in global food prices. There have been food riots in 14 countries, from the tortilla riots in Mexico to the pasta protests in Italy. We are seeing a fundamental shift in the notion of food security and self-sufficiency. Even UK supermarkets are starting to acknowledge that they can no longer move their purchasing plans around from country to country, hopping between continents, because of countries' increased reluctance to export food when they cannot feed themselves. Since June 2008, the consequence of that in the UK alone has been an increase in staple food prices of 13.7 per cent. That is felt in the wallets and on the kitchen tables of households across the country.
	What we are being asked to address as a Parliament, and what the country will have to address, is the word "resilience". What food resilience is there in the UK? Resilience means the ability of our country to deal with food shocks and long-term changes in food supply. I want to list the weaknesses in our current position that make us non-resilient. We are massively dependent on nitrogen fertilisers. Last year, we imported 1 million tonnes of nitrogen fertilisers, which are 310 times as damaging to the environment as carbon dioxide. We are heavily dependent in that we do not source our own fertilisers but have to import them from abroad. Sixty-nine per cent. of the pesticides used in the UK were imported from outside. Ninety-five per cent. of UK food is oil-dependent.
	Most worrying of all is the question of UK soil. Twenty years ago, the country was warned that almost half of the soil in the UK was vulnerable to erosion. The Environment Agency estimated that in the years 1995 to 1998 we lost 2.3 million tonnes of agricultural soil to erosion, directly as a consequence of our reliance on intensive farming. We have at various times discussed in this House our dependence on peak oil, but we have had no discussions on peak food or peak phosphate. Phosphate is a finite mineral resource that will be under huge pressure, given the increasing demands from China and from India. In the past few months, phosphates have increased in price by 700 per cent. to over £185 a tonne.
	We need to address all those issues when we consider how resilient UK food policy is, even before we begin to build into the equation the role of food and the land in meeting UK carbon emission targets. We need a UK plan for food; what we have at the moment is a million miles from that. We have a policy based on a wing and a prayer. This country, and our future generations, require an awful lot more than that.

Stephen O'Brien: I can keep some of my remarks brief, on the basis that the case for improved food labelling in this country has been made very cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). My job is made easier by the fact that the Minister did not even attempt to say why the do nothing policy of the last 10 years was justified.
	Normally, when talking on this subject, I start from the point of view of those whom I represent in Eddisbury—the farmers, producers and those allied to food production in a constituency that is at the heart of the largest and most productive dairy field in Europe. I pay tribute to all those who participate in the farming sector in my constituency, dealing with meat, potatoes and all the other foodstuffs that Cheshire is famous for. I introduced a food labelling Bill very early on as an MP, following my entry after a by-election in 2000, and I did so again in 2002. The matter has since been taken on by others, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). Every time, we have come up against this Government, who have mouthed warm words. They have been determined to see us off, but nothing has happened. We have had 10 years of sclerosis over this law, which is needed as much now as it was then.
	Instead, I have decided to start with an attempt to interpret the thoughts and motivations of Labour Ministers and the Labour party in government. They came into office very suspicious of farmers—even despising them to some degree. I do not think that was just to do with the fact that farmers were landowners, but because, as they saw it, farmers did not represent consumers, and consumers equalled voters. The Government were obsessed exclusively with voters, rather than taking into account the interests of the whole nation. They got rid of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and got rid of producer representation at the Cabinet table. They introduced the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and then subsumed agriculture and the farming interest into something far more focused on the consumer interest. That was followed by the Food Standards Agency, which began with DEFRA—indeed, it was prayed in aid by the Minister—but as soon as they could, they offloaded it from DEFRA, and gave accountability for it to the Department of Health. It is at arm's length to such an extent that we have not had a Health Minister talk about that subject for as long as I can remember, and I have been a shadow Health Minister for three years. There is an absence of Government accountability for producers. They have put everything on a consumer basis.
	That helps us to understand why something has gone seriously wrong with food labelling. The Government's instinct is to recognise that our arguments are sound and well based, and much of the Government's amendment to the motion, and the Minister's speech, shows that they agree with many of our arguments. But when it comes to the nub of the matter, what has to change to take us from inaction and ineffectiveness? We still have the same problem. There are examples of Union Jacks on Thai imported chicken stuffed with hormones. There are examples even today—there certainly were 10 years ago—of pork pies coming from Brazil. They are not the problem as far as traceability is concerned. The example I gave 10 years ago was of something called the "swine stamp"—people knew exactly which pig was the source of which product because in Brazil they have traceability down to a fine art. The problem was that it was packaged with a Union Jack on the front once it reached these shores to be processed and sold. The same is true of Swedish meat products, where traceability is provided through swedishtasty.com—which is interesting nomenclature.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has always raised the issue of bacon coming from Denmark, as I did 10 years ago. It has been very uncompetitively produced, as opposed to British production—

Roger Williams: Very competitive.

Stephen O'Brien: Well, it was uncompetitive from our point of view, of course.
	Some 10 years later, we still have bar-coding technology and a voluntary code for supermarkets that is not working, despite our praise for their promotions of British production from time to time. We have heard the Government using the same words that they use in the motion today, which is distinct from the mandatory introduction that we propose. They are simply calling for better food labelling provisions, and they are calling on the EU to do something. That has not worked, and in the context of the commoditisation of food production of premium products in this country, our farmers have been left in an unfair position. That is why we have to argue strongly for food labelling. This is not just a narrow point, because it brings to a head many of the issues that give us a fair position in the marketplace, give our farmers a fair chance to compete, and above all, allow the consumer to make an informed choice. That informed choice will ensure that consumers can give the support to the British farmers that they often want to give, but it will be a choice.
	I have been much encouraged by some of the statements by the Secretary of State and the Minister, but unfortunately the situation has always collapsed when it comes to actually changing the law. The Government's approach has shown a clear obsession with the consumer interest and negligence of the producer interest. In fact, the interests of consumers and the nation are best served by ensuring that consumers have an informed choice, and that they have the abilities that we propose.
	I shall not run through the detail of what can be done legally, because it is in our motion and our plans, which I am glad the Minister has read in detail. I suggest that, as we have argued for many years, the Government get some new advice, for goodness' sake try, and above all show leadership. Many people have argued that we need to ensure that we gain the benefits that the EU gives us in the marketplace, but it has absolutely failed to provide leadership in this area. Instead, there has been followership. The EU has followed the pace of the slowest performer across Europe.
	The Government have been given much information and many warnings over the past 10 years, and they need to represent our farmers, who are some of the most high-quality, efficient farmers in the world, let alone Europe. We need to ensure that those farmers get a proper chance to compete and to supply the market. We need leadership from the Government, in the lawful way proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs in his cogent speech. That is the way forward, and it is our policy. The Government should forget pride of authorship and whatever advice they have been given over the past 10 years, which has clearly been wrong. We want to see our policy delivered, and frankly, we are quite happy for the Government to steal it. If they do not introduce it, we will. I hope that the chance will come soon.

Bill Wiggin: I read  Farmers Weekly, and this morning when I was reading the editorial comment, I saw that Jane King could not tell the difference between what the Conservative party believes in and what the Government believe in. I hope that she will read the speeches made in the debate and see that there is a massive void between a Government who are determined to protect the European Commission from making any decision whatever and my own party, which is determined to make a difference, to fight for our farmers and to allow our consumers to help our farming industry.
	The Minister was right to mention the egg sector, but her speech was definitely a rotten one. She did not even manage to answer my question in an intervention about what she was doing to ensure that the Ministry of Defence bought British bacon for our troops. They are fighting for us and dying for us, and they deserve to be fed by us. I hope that she will do what she can to put the situation right.
	As for the Liberal Democrats, they are absolutely right in their soundbites and I hope that they get their policies in order so that the dairy farmers, who know that they are being exploited, at least hear something that they can hope will be delivered. At the moment, the Liberal Democrats do not have a policy that has any credibility whatever, and I am sorry about that.
	In my constituency, farming really matters. The 2001 census showed that there were more than 3,600 people employed in it, which represents 9 per cent. of the local work force. My constituents need this Government or any Government to do three things, and the next Conservative Government will certainly do them. The first is to examine the red tape burden on our farmers. Compulsory electronic ID tags for sheep have been trialled in my constituency, and one of my constituents wrote to me saying that they had
	"found the system was not practicable or reliable enough to work on a one man commercially run flock."
	I hope that the Government will listen to the people who have been trialling such things and do their best to ensure that such unnecessary burdens are not heaped upon our sheep farmers. The nitrate vulnerable zones that have been rolled out across large parts of our county are simply an extra burden, and I suspect that they will not deliver the benefits envisaged in the Government's well-intentioned policy. They will cause more trouble, difficulty and cost, and they will not deliver the clean water that we want.
	The next problem is the Government's policy. I do not think that farmers feel that the Government are supporting them, and there is no finer example of that than the cider producers in my constituency. Bulmers has already closed its bottling plant with the loss of 54 jobs, and, in the Budget in March 2008, the Government increased duties on bottled cider by 9 per cent. In last November's pre-Budget report, they increased them by a further 8 per cent. Nobody could argue that we want anything other than a level playing field on which to compete, but when such extra burdens are added to a fine British industry, one can only despair about what is going through the Government's mind.
	Time and again, I raise bovine TB. Hereford beef is the finest in the world—it is the most popular and the best. I am happy to declare an interest in that I have Hereford cattle—I am proud of that. How on earth can we continue to produce the finest beef in the world when only this week I got an e-mail from one of my farming constituents, who has the oldest herd of Hereford cattle in the world, saying that he had 150 cows taken away because of TB? We have the highest badger concentration—nearly four per square kilometre. Those badgers go away and die in agony in their setts. The disease starts with ulcers in their bladders and spreads to the other organs of their bodies. We can move on from the debate about the £100 million of taxpayers' money that is being spent on the TB strategy that is not working, but the animal welfare implications of the suffering of those badgers is unacceptable, and the Government's refusal to do anything about it is simply wrong.
	I call on the Under-Secretary to listen carefully to my hon. Friends' comments. We must stop importing cruel practices and stop badgers' unnecessary suffering. We must stop misinforming the public about what they buy and start helping consumers to help our farmers. Most important, we must use the Government's purchasing power to ensure that our troops, our schools and our hospitals get the finest food in the world—that means that it has got to be British and say so on the label.

Richard Bacon: Last November, the Minister, who is unfortunately not in her place, presented the David Black memorial award at the British Pig Executive breakfast on the Terrace, where some hon. Members were present. It went to Ian Campbell for his distinguished service to the pig industry.
	In November 2006, the award was presented to my constituent, Philip Richardson, a distinguished farmer, who has made a big contribution to the pig industry over many years—some hon. Members know about that contribution. A few months ago, I was shocked to hear on "Farming Today" at 5.45 am the sound of Mr. Richardson's voice as he declared that he was leaving the pig sector.
	My constituent's farm had 350 breeding sows. Some hon. Members know that a breeding sow produces, on average, a couple of litters a year of 10 progeny each. The 350 breeding sows therefore produced some 7,000 progeny a year. That puts into perspective the problems that pig farmers face when they lose £20 per animal. That does not sound like an enormous amount of money to lose, but when it is multiplied by the number of piglets produced, it suddenly becomes a six-figure sum. I was shocked to hear my constituent's comments because he was one of the first farmers I met when I became Member of Parliament for South Norfolk and he has made an enormous contribution to the industry, as recognised by the award that the Minister's predecessor, Lord Rooker, presented to him only two years ago.
	That is only one indication of what has happened in the industry in the past 10 years, during which we have not had the protection—perhaps "protection" is the wrong word and I should say that we have not given consumers the information that compulsory country of origin labelling would provide. I believe that such labelling would have resulted in a greater market share for British producers. The Minister said that the use of the Union flag is known to be a successful marketing device.
	I was pleased that, at the Oxford farming conference in January, the Secretary of State said:
	"Under current European regulations, a product's country of origin is the place where it underwent its last significant process. But this can hide where it really came from.
	A pork pie made in Britain from Danish pork can legitimately be labelled as a British pork pie. That's a nonsense, and it needs to change."
	That sounded remarkably familiar. Indeed, it could have been lifted from a speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made many years ago when he introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I tried to introduce a Bill—most recently, last October and before that, in 2004—along the same lines. I welcome the fact that the Government are now on the same page in recognising that labelling is important and that it contributes to better consumer information. However, I cannot understand their reluctance to take on—or at least argue the case with—the Commission more forcefully than they have done.
	It is important to nail one thing clearly. It is logically impossible to suppose that providing greater transparency to consumers in a given market could, in itself, favour one product over another. It would not do that; what it would do is improve the operation of the market. Personally, I hope that that market improvement would occur through more consumers, knowing the accurate origins of the food, choosing to buy British-produced food. I make no bones about that; indeed, it is one of the reasons why I would like clearer food labelling.
	However, clearer food labelling might not have that result. There might be people who wish to buy Italian salami or French bread. In the days of apartheid, people avoided, for perhaps good reasons, buying South African apples or oranges, which were clearly labelled. They avoided buying them because they wanted to express a consumer choice, and they were entitled to do that. Just after the Berlin wall came down, there were people—I was one of them—who sought out eastern European gherkins to try to support our brothers and sisters in Poland. Having rather let them down in the second world war and left them behind the iron curtain for 50 years, we needed to do what we could to support their growing markets. I made a conscious decision to seek out Polish products in the early '90s. The point is that consumers ought to have a choice.
	The Government's voluntary approach has not succeeded and it is not going to succeed. I was talking to a DEFRA official recently who seemed to wallow in his powerlessness. He said, "Oh, it's occupied ground, there's nothing we can do." I say to the Minister—she is not in her place now, but I hope that she reads this debate afterwards—that if she cannot get the right advice, she needs to get new advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, it is notoriously true—of both lawyers and economists—that if someone cannot get the advice that they want, they should find a new lawyer. That is what the Government did over the Iraq war, so why can they not do it over food labelling? They should find the right advice, get in the lead and push hard in the European Commission.
	There is now much more support for such moves in Europe than there was. I was over in Brussels with the chairman of the British Pig Executive just last June, meeting a German Christian Democrat MEP who was interested in exactly that issue and who was pushing for compulsory labelling of country of origin in the European Parliament. Things have moved on, but the Government need to push much harder than they are currently prepared to.

Daniel Rogerson: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to get in on this debate.
	I am glad that we have heard a little in the most recent contributions about the wider issues of self-sufficiency in the industry. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) referred to the bovine TB crisis. Only last night, very late on, I received a message that one of the farmers in my constituency was facing repossession. The blame for the problems that he has experienced, which are also obviously connected with other financial issues, can be laid at the door of the bovine TB crisis and the Government's inaction. Fortunately, I heard this morning that, following the small contribution that I was able to make and, I am sure, the excellent representation that he received, a deal was struck and that farmer is able to continue on his farm. However, many farmers throughout the country face great difficulties, so I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue. I also echo his comments about the Government needing to tackle the problem and act on the recommendations of the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member.
	I want briefly to address the wider issues of labelling. Indeed, I was grateful when I heard yesterday that labelling would be the topic of debate this evening. Along with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency, the Government need to address issues connected with the nutritional information with which people are provided. I should probably put on record the fact that I chair the all-party group on cheese—indeed, there are other members of the group in the Chamber this evening.
	We have talked about the diary industry and livestock farmers, and the problems that they face, and we are moving down the path towards the traffic-light labelling system, which has some perverse effects in indicating to the consumer how they can make healthy choices about what they eat. For example, a product such as cheese—a product that has been produced for thousands of years in western Europe; a product that has been not only a core part of our diet through all sorts of experiences, but a part of our culture; a product that is rich in protein and high in calcium, which are vital, particularly to women, who may suffer from osteoporosis later in life—can be ruled out by having red lights all over it, owing to its fat and salt content, yet those red lights are based purely on comparing 100 g of cheese with all sorts of other products.
	I am indebted to the Food and Drink Federation for its work on this issue in promoting the alternative of the GDA—guideline daily amounts—scheme. That labelling takes a little reading, but it is far clearer to the consumer and far better in the quality of information it provides.

Stephen O'Brien: Of course, one can actually get the right solution by completely ignoring the stubborn FSA approach—the traffic light wheel—and going for something like McCain oven chips, because that company has demonstrated that by putting GDA amounts on labels with some colour coding, it is possible to get readable and correct information so that, rather than stigmatising suitable foods, people get a good diet.

Daniel Rogerson: I am happy to have taken that contribution from the hon. Gentleman. The issue is often one of portion size and the neutron-proton model is based on 100 g of everything; one does not always eat 100 g of every particular food.

Roger Williams: I would appreciate hearing my hon. Friend's comments on Ofcom, which uses the 100 g criteria in deciding what products can be advertised to children. Surely cheese is a wonderful product for children as they are growing up and need their calcium and protein.

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. In fact, Ofcom is using the guidelines presented by other Government agencies. What it is seeking to do—many hon. Members suggest that it is a good thing—is to restrict advertising of junk food for children, but it is ridiculous when it is absolutely fine to advertise diet fizzy drinks, but not a product like cheese.
	I shall not prolong my contribution, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the Government will look more generally at labelling. In his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about environmental concerns. We have heard a great deal about provenance and origin, which are called for in the Conservative motion, and I hope that the Government will urgently revisit the issue of nutritional information provided to consumers.
	Finally, I hope that we will have a debate in this country about the positive contribution that food makes to our national life and culture. We should not constantly reduce the issue to a matter of scientific information, bean counting and number crunching. Food makes a far wider contribution to our heritage and culture, which we should be celebrating.  The Times reported just before Christmas that the French Government are funding research into what makes a good meal and what contribution that makes to the national life. We should do the same in this country and speak far more about the positive contribution that the food industry and food generally make, rather than continually sending out a message of "Thou shalt not" about the foods that people should eat.

David Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has asserted with absolute confidence that the finest beef in the world comes from his constituency. I am pleased to assert with similar confidence that the finest lamb in the world comes from my constituency. Generations of farming families in Clwyd, West have applied their hard work and expertise to creating a unique, high-quality product. It is therefore entirely understandable that those farmers should feel incensed that the laws of this land are so haphazard that they allow meat products from other parts of the world to be described quite legitimately as having been produced in Wales or in the UK when the only acquaintance of such meat with these shores is that the animal has been brought here for slaughter and processed.
	That is, in a very real sense, theft. It is the theft of the good will built up by generations of British farmers in producing a high-quality product that people want to buy. They want to buy it because it tastes better, because they know that it has been produced in clean conditions without undue suffering to the animal, and has not been stuffed full of growth hormones and antibiotics. They also know that it has been produced reasonably locally and is not contributing to excessive carbon emissions by being flown half way across the world. Under present arrangements, however, those consumers are being cheated. The label says one thing, but the truth may be entirely different. Under the present arrangements, the consumer does not have a clue about the true origins of the meat being put on his plate. That, on any analysis, is an outrageous state of affairs.
	The Government acknowledge in their amendment that
	"clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients for meat and meat products would level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show a preference for food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare".
	However, expressing that pious belief does nothing to improve the current regrettable state of affairs.
	The Government say that it is to the benefit of consumers if supermarkets and retailers comply with the FSA guidance on country of origin labelling, but the difficulty is that the guidance is just that—guidance. It is not mandatory, and the preamble makes it clear that compliance with the advice on best practice is not required by law.
	In any event, the guidance notes are widely ignored by retailers. For example, they suggest that
	"to describe a rabbit pie that is made in the UK from imported rabbit as 'Produced in the UK' would not be best practice."
	However, typical of the supermarket response to the guidance is that of Tesco, which was quoted in  The Independent on 30 January 2009 and said that
	"'produced in the UK'... will be in small writing on the back of the pack and is intended only to indicate where the food has been produced. It is not used in a way that suggests any of the ingredients are British and is not used to market the food as a 'British' product."
	Well, clearly it is.
	The current state of affairs is unsustainable. It is nothing short of a disgrace that supermarkets and processors are at liberty to plaster food products with Union flags or Welsh dragons and say that they are produced in the UK or in Wales when they are not British and could not, even on the most charitable interpretation of either adjective, be described as such.
	The Opposition motion certainly should be supported. Proper food labelling is urgently needed and long overdue. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed sympathy with the motion to vote for it. I have no doubt that we will be applauded by the consumer and the food producer alike.

Andrew Murrison: I declare an interest as a keeper of rare-breed pigs. I have four minutes to cover pigs, pork and bacon.
	I am very proud indeed of the animal welfare standards in the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be capitalising on our good nature. Rightly or wrongly, most of our constituents believe that their Government observe and gold-plate EU directives that the rest of the EU pays lip service to. That impression, I am afraid, is borne out by the sad story of the British pig industry.
	What on earth did the Government think would happen when, in 1999, they changed pig welfare standards unilaterally, without the possibility of any form of import control, so that cheap meat from pigs kept in lousy conditions would flood the UK market and trash indigenous mid to low-end production? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has visited some pretty dreadful things on farmers these past few years, but as an exercise in sheer stupidity that takes the biscuit. The result has been that we have simply exported cheap, cruel meat production to the continent.
	Today, we have heard a lot about the misdeeds of supermarkets. I was in a supermarket in my constituency at the weekend. A big banner said, "We only sell British Pork". Many would think that that included bacon, but the sainted Jamie Oliver has alerted us to the sharp practices of our supermarkets. And lo, what do we find, but that that particular supermarket is peddling a large quantity of Danish bacon?
	As Jamie told the Health Committee recently:
	"I think labelling in Great Britain is a disgrace. Categorically, we are run by the EU on labelling."
	He is absolutely right. We find on the front of packs "Sourced in the UK", yet on the back—in the tiniest font, illegible to many of our constituents, or at least to those who do not have 20:20 vision—we find that the product is grown anywhere but the UK.
	The commercially obliging badge "Produced in the UK" is admissible under World Trade Organisation rules, EU law and the labelling regulations if the very last stage in the food processing took place here, even if the ingredients on which it is based were largely produced abroad.
	A picture paints a thousand words. Idyllic rural scenes on packets of meat scream "Made in Britain". That does not happen by chance, for the supermarket marketing men are well versed in human psychology. Flip the pack over and if people have good eyesight, they will see that the meat is extremely well travelled.
	My own favourite is something that its retailer is pleased to call Wiltshire cured bacon. There is a way to cure bacon in the Wiltshire manner. I found it in Mrs. Beeton's cook book at the weekend, and I suspect that the supermarket in question found it there too. I have no way of telling how true to the Wiltshire curing method that bacon is, but that is irrelevant. The purpose of marketing Wiltshire cured bacon is to suggest to the customer that the product is British and therefore trustworthy. Look at the small print and we see that the product is from elsewhere in the EU.
	Last month, the Secretary of State stamped his foot and told supermarkets to play fair. He said that they were harming the Government's attempts to get people to buy British food, but this Minister's Government have presided over all this. They have exported our one-time poor animal welfare standards to the continent and have trashed the British pork industry in the process. She may agree with Jamie Oliver that that is a disgrace, but if that is so, it is a disgrace that this Government have presided over.

James Paice: Let me begin by reminding the House of my interests, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Opposition Members are fortunate in that we shadow a team of Ministers who are all, individually, very nice and charming. They may not say the same about us, but that is by the by. That charm, however, cannot disguise their ineffectiveness in dealing with some of our crucial issues. We called this debate with the aim of focusing on just one of the many issues that face agriculture at present, although we do not suggest that it provides the sole answer to the problems of farming.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned food security and the need for it to be debated. I remind him that we had such a debate last summer, called by the Opposition, in Opposition time. I do not recall the last occasion on which the Government arranged any debate on agriculture in Government time, and I have to say that the same goes for the Liberal Democrats.
	Since the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy, Ministers rightly no longer have the ability, effectively, to fix farm-gate prices, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) apparently regrets that. If the Government really want to promote agriculture in this country, they must use other methods, one of which is to make the market work. If we expect farmers to operate in the free market—and I think most Members believe that that is the right way forward—it is incumbent on Government to make the market work effectively, and one of the key factors in that is ensuring that the consumer is properly informed and able to make a free choice.
	I was astonished by the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Although he was keen to quote people such as Adam Smith, it seemed to me that he had no understanding of the way in which a market truly operates. According to the press release that he issued today, my party is seen as the party of markets, yet now we seek to regulate. We have never suggested that there is no need for any regulation at all. On the contrary, there is a need for regulation when the market fails, and this is a clear example of the market failing.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: No, I will not.
	That is why we have proposed a Bill to deal with the problem. That is why we support the proposals of the Competition Commission on supermarkets, why we supported the abandoned merger of two milk groups, and why we want all public procurement to specify British standards. We want regulation only where it is necessary, but, as our motion says, in the instance of food labelling the market has failed, and regulation is therefore necessary.
	The Minister referred to her constant meetings. The issue of the Jamie Oliver programme has cropped up several times, and she rightly mentioned our participation in it. The recording took place on 3 November, only a few days after the Minister had taken office. She could therefore be forgiven for not having all the answers that I, and others, wanted at the time. That was over four months ago, however, and we still have no answers.
	What was disappointing about the Minister's speech was that, although she was critical of our proposal for a statutory approach, she was not able to identify the right way forward. Four months since that recording, when she was exposed to a deceit which she recognised and called a disgrace, we have seen nothing. If our proposal is too broad, and the Minister would rather limit Government action to pigmeat, that is a start, but let her take the proposal to the Commission. If 10 per cent. is too low a threshold for the proportion of ingredients, let the Government ramp it up to 20 or 30 per cent., but let them take it to the Commission. The point is that they have not done that.
	It is more than 10 years since the present Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), proclaimed, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that he had secured a voluntary agreement. He then talked out my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Although the Minister may have been in office in this Department for only a few months, for most of the past 12 years she has been a member of this Government. She cannot deny the Government's failure to address the issue for all that time.
	I want also to touch on some of the comments made by Members. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made a tremendously thoughtful speech, much of which I agree and sympathise with. I do not go all the way with him, however. He is a strong supporter of the organic movement, and it has a great part to play, but what he did not do—I would welcome a debate on this on another occasion—is address the fundamental dilemma that organic production has lower yields than conventional systems. If we are worried about food security and total production, that crucial dilemma must be dealt with.
	The hon. Gentleman also rightly referred to the abuse of words such as "fresh", "natural" and "pure". I am reminded of the recent Cardhu whisky case involving the difference between pure malt and single malt whisky, which eventually had to be resolved by legislation. There is clearly room for a lot more work there.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), both former promoters of similar legislation, made clear their understandably intense anger that the Government have not taken the matter forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred to the operation of the market and the need for the Government to push much harder in Europe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) put forward a number of other issues, including tuberculosis, regulations and the cider tax, all of which need to be addressed. The TB issue was also referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson).
	Finally, my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) again emphasised the importance of local food and proper labelling, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury made a pertinent comment about the export of cruel and lower standards to other countries if we operate ahead of others.
	Much has also been said about food security, and I hope the Minister who responds to the debate will answer some fundamental questions. The Secretary of State has been in post for more than one and a half years, yet all that seems to have changed is the rhetoric. His predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary—presumably until the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gets promoted, as seems to be the fashion in this Government—said in this House that food security was achieved by importing from many different countries. That was met with laughter and astonishment. We have had new rhetoric from the current Secretary of State, at the Oxford farming conference and last week before the National Farmers Union, that he wants to increase domestic production—no ifs, no buts. That is what he said.
	What are we to make, however, of DEFRA's website? We find pages dedicated to further reform of the common agricultural policy and to the document published in December 2005, "A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was signed off by the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, and the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now the Minister for Housing. That document is still published on DEFRA's website as the Government's vision for the CAP, and I quote, as I have before in debates in this House, the following statement:
	"domestic production is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for food security."
	Nobody pretends it is sufficient, but not necessary? Who do we believe: the Secretary of State with his new rhetoric or the Prime Minister himself?
	The Secretary of State's argument is to increase domestic production, no ifs, no buts, as long as the consumer wants it and it is environmentally sustainable. We support that. Who in their right mind would not support it? However, the Secretary of State left out in his proclamations of the last couple of weeks a number of other ifs and buts: "If you can comply with all the regulatory burden; if you can afford the extra storage to comply within the nitrate vulnerable zone regulations; if you can find time to do any farming after you have filled in all the Government forms." There are also a few more buts: "But the Government won't help you to combat TB; but they will charge you for disease control; but you still won't get your money when other countries do; but we will demand repayment if we overpay you—you'll pay up at once; but we won't demand British standards for public-procured food; but you will have to face increased integrated pollution prevention and control or IPPC, you will have to face electronic identification or EID, and you will have to face the availability of pesticides."
	There are a lot more buts that the Secretary of State left out, one of which is that we are at the butt end of this Government. They are content to remain in office until the very last moment, but we have learned from this debate that they are prepared to let farmers and consumers suffer while they twiddle their thumbs. The final but is that it is time for the Government to butt out.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the House for a generally balanced and interesting debate. Once again, I welcome the Opposition spokesmen—with one exception—to their new roles. Comment was made that this Front-Bench team was charming. I was going to begin my remarks by saying that the Opposition Front Benchers were charming and a little disarming, although those last comments were not.
	The debate has covered an issue that is of concern not only to all involved in the food sector, but to consumers in this country. Rightly, food and how it is produced has never been so high on the public agenda. Why is that? It is because the food market is changing rapidly, and people want and rightly demand healthy, nutritious products produced with a low environmental impact, from sustainable sources and with high standards of animal welfare, clear provenance and environmentally sound distribution. Many of those factors have been raised in this debate. We must also be cognisant of the fact that people also want their food to be convenient and good value. That is a challenge, but for those across the supply chain it is also a unique opportunity. We want to support producers, farmers and everyone in the supply chain to take advantage of this opportunity. That is the only way in which we will build a healthy, thriving agricultural sector.
	Opposition Members provided some interesting examples of where they feel that labelling has gone wrong—indeed, there was almost product placement of Marks and Sparks, Birds Eye, and the Co-op and the farmers market in Arundel, which I know we shall all be visiting—but I think that we all agree on the main principle: that we should do all that we can to help British consumers make an informed choice about what they buy and to buy British and support British farmers by choice.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a speech that was very thoughtful in places, but he seemed to be urging us to go back to the sixties a bit, with price fixing at farm gates. His contribution was well-meaning and thoughtful, but consumers will take note and will probably panic at the idea of a Lib Dem Minister pricing the pork off the dinner table in times of economic downturn. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who I believe is in his place, in an intervention urged him to think again, but in another re-run of decades ago suggested that the solution was getting out of Europe. Both approaches—turning our back on Europe or turning our back on the hard-pressed consumer—are a retreat from reality.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) suggested that when Labour came to power we not only had an antipathy towards rural areas, but we actually despised them. That would come as a surprise to the chair of my local farmers union. In 1997—I know that the hon. Gentleman arrived in this place two years later—there were 120 Labour MPs representing rural seats, all advocating hard on behalf of their constituents. He also urged us to show leadership. Is that leadership to get out of Europe or into isolation in Europe? Which would be the better for farmers and which would be the better for consumers?
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), with whom I have regularly debated various issues in different roles, was very angry. I wondered what my right hon. Friend the Minister had done to wind him up, because he is not normally so angry. We were urged to show determination, and I agree that we need to show determination, as this is a real issue. The hon. Gentleman also spoke up for Hereford beef, which is indeed world class. Together with Welsh Black beef and others, it is recognised for its quality and how it is produced.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) raised valid concerns about the pig industry. He made some thoughtful comments, but in an apparent Freudian slip he said that it has not had the "protection". He instantly corrected himself, saying that that was not the right word, and he was right. I hope that the House agrees that the last thing that would be in the interests of our farmers, producers, retailers and consumers would be to withdraw into some sort of protectionist mentality. The hon. Gentleman insisted that we will not argue the case with the Commissioner— [ Interruption. ] We will argue the case with the Commissioner, but let us do so on a case with which we have a scintilla of possibility of success, as opposed to the wording of the Conservative motion.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is the chair of the all-party cheese group. I would have dearly loved to have recommended to him my father-in-law's pecorino and ricotta, which were lovingly made from sheep's milk on a farm nestling in the foothills of the Brecon Beacons, but it is unfortunately now out of production, and I do not have to declare an interest. The hon. Gentleman made some thoughtful and useful comments on nutritional information that enriched the debate that we have had this evening.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) paid tribute to the lamb from his constituency. He knows that Welsh lamb as a brand—like Hereford and others—has succeeded in overcoming many obstacles by clearly identifying its origin as a mark of quality and integrity. That is why people search it out. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke with passion about mandatory labelling, but the Opposition's proposal is unworkable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) rightly reminded the House of the importance of food security, which can often get lost in technical debate, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), in an intelligent and cogent analysis of the issue from the common-sense perspective of the consumer. His speech was wide ranging: he managed to combine the car industry and the Cumberland sausage—I hesitate to say it, but they are two good examples of British bangers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South argued for a mandatory system to counter the exploitation of labelling and the consumer. There are several ways to do that. We can do it through working with the EU, as we are doing. We can do it by working with producers and the food chain in the UK, as we are doing. We can also explore what else can be done on mandating, but not as in the proposal in the Opposition motion, which would be bound to fail. The question for the Opposition is whether they want us to ignore the ways in which we can make progress now—in Europe and with British retailers and farmers. The problem is that sitting here as legislators, they see legislation and regulation as the only answer. It is the classic issue of a workman who has only a hammer in his toolbox, so everything looks like a nail. We need to use all the tools at our disposal.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear, we need to help people to buy British if they wish and if they choose. For the past 10 years, the Government have been at the forefront of helping consumers to make informed choices. We have established the Food Standards Agency, we have brought into being the traffic light system and we have set out tough guidelines on country of origin labelling—

Andrew Robathan: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	 Question put  forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 212, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House considers that British consumers should have the information that they need in order to make the choices they want when they buy their food; notes that the European Commission has rejected a recent proposal from the Irish Government for national mandatory country of origin labelling for meat and meat products; believes that clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients for meat and meat products would level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show a preference for food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental protection; agrees that where supermarkets and retailers comply with the Food Standards Agency's guidance on country of origin labelling that this is to the benefit of their consumers; and further believes that the best way to back British consumers and British producers is to support the Government's calls for tougher and clearer country of origin labelling across Europe.

Business without Debate

business of the house

Motion made,
	That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. —(Mr. Blizzard.)

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMBER BRIDGE TOLLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Blizzard.)

Graham Stuart: On behalf of the residents on both sides of the River Humber, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place tonight. The Humber bridge tolls affect constituents across the whole of east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire.
	I shall begin by explaining a little of the bridge's history before I move on to its current financial predicament and the impact on local people. In the short term, the Humber bridge board has proposed an increase in the existing toll—already the most expensive toll in the country—of 20p per crossing. Having discussed that, I shall move on to the growing calls from all areas of the local community and all political parties to scrap the debt currently owed on the bridge; it now stands at a remarkable £334 million or more.
	Plans for the bridge were originally drawn up in the 1930s, but work on it did not begin until 1972. I am glad to see so many Members from the other side of the bridge in the Chamber tonight. They will remember the infamous Kingston upon Hull, North by-election; it is good to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) in her seat today. During that 1966 by-election, in a desperate attempt to save an ailing Labour Government—there may be echoes today—Barbara Castle sanctioned the building of the bridge. At the time, it was estimated that the bridge would cost £28 million to build. However, as a result of Government procurement and mismanagement, for which both sides of the House bear some responsibility, the figure trebled to more than £90 million.
	Over the years, in the hands of Governments of both parties, the debt grew in Government books, and it stood at £334.5 million as of April 2006. By 1992, the debt had grown to a whopping £439 million. It was recognised that the bridge board's financial situation was unsustainable and that action was needed. Without Government assistance, the debt would have risen to more than £650 million by 1997. As a result, the last Conservative Government passed the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act in February 1996. That allowed the Secretary of State to reorganise the bridge's finances and write off debts payable to the Government by the bridge board.
	Consequently, in 1998 a new loan agreement was signed with the Humber bridge board; £64 million of debt was written off and the rest was suspended and rescheduled. The interest owed on the bridge was reduced from about 12 per cent. to 7.75 per cent. with the aim that the debt would be paid off by 2032. Had the 1996 Act not been passed, the total interest charged would have come in at tens of millions of pounds a year, placing an unacceptable burden on local taxpayers. As it was, interest charges were reduced to £10 million, which was paid for from the surplus of income produced by the Humber bridge board.
	In 2007, the Department for Transport reduced the interest rate to 4.25 per cent. following the Humber bridge board's advice that it would simply be unable to service the debt if it remained at more than 7 per cent. It is my constituents, and those of colleagues on the Labour Benches—

Greg Knight: And mine.

Graham Stuart: I also include the constituents of my right hon. Friend, whom I am glad to see behind me. All those constituents are paying for that colossal debt. Since the 2006 toll increase, it has cost £5.40 for a return journey across the bridge—£2.70 per trip—and more than £18 for a single lorry crossing. Last year, however, the Humber bridge board made an application to the Secretary of State for Transport for the toll to be increased by a further 20p to £2.90 for a single car crossing.
	That decision has caused consternation on both sides of the Humber. The Department for Transport received more than 950 objection letters in just a few months, and the planned increase has been criticised by MPs, councillors, community activists, businesses and community groups. The Hull and Humber chamber of commerce has said:
	"The tolls are a barrier to trade, recruitment and investment. They effectively split the Humber area into two separate markets. Any increase would make things more difficult for businesses and their employees".
	The four councils in the area all formally objected to the increase. The strength of public opinion has been such that the Department for Transport has been forced to call a public inquiry into the proposals. I myself have sent an objection by way of a written submission, and will give evidence at the inquiry next Tuesday.
	The Humber bridge tolls are already the most expensive in the country. For those who travel across the bridge to get to work each day or travel from the south bank to Hull to receive regular treatment at Hull royal infirmary or Castle Hill, where a major and very welcome new cancer hospital is located, £5.40 for a return crossing is a significant financial burden. Increasing the cost of crossing the bridge at a time when unemployment is rising and household budgets are being squeezed would be completely the wrong thing to do and fly in the face of other Government policies that supposedly aim to stimulate the economy. What is the point of making the VAT cut if the Government are going to make the cost of personal travel even more expensive? Many families are struggling to cover the cost of keeping their car on the road and cannot afford such increases at this time.
	The main problem is that even if it were decided not to allow the increase in the coming week, there would still be a shortfall in the board's finances. As it states on its website, as part of the refinancing arrangement agreed with the Government in 1998,
	"the Board compiled with the Secretary of State a series of financial projections to show how it would meet debt repayments in the future. In order to meet its obligations in respect of these projections, the Board needs to increase tolls at regular intervals. Current projections necessitate increases every two years."
	It is ridiculous to visit this on our constituents at this time. How much will users of the bridge be paying in 10 or 20 years' time under these present arrangements?

Austin Mitchell: The abolition of the tolls clearly has all-party support. Is it not a fact that if the tolls were removed, the stimulus to development and growth in the area would generate more taxes for the Treasury than it is currently getting through the tolls?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, puts his finger on the nub of the issue. I will come to those points later on, but I welcome his contribution.
	The only long-term sustainable solution to the problem is the removal or substantial reduction of the tolls. Next week's inquiry should be a starting point for a much broader inquiry into the whole issue of the bridge debt and the impact that the tolls are having on the local economy. The bridge cost just over £90 million when it was first built, and in the years since more than £300 million has been paid in tolls, yet we are meant to accept that in the Government's book the board should still owe £330 million. That makes no sense. It is a burden imposed on the local economy, and it makes a mockery of the whole purpose of putting the bridge up in the first place, which was not just to help the predecessor of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to get elected but to help the economy of the area.
	The Humber bridge board makes two debt repayments to the Exchequer every year. On 31 March 2009, the interest payment alone will be more than £7 million. More than 80 per cent. of the money made from the Humber bridge toll goes towards the interest on the debt. As a result, the total debt outstanding on the bridge has been reduced by just £26 million in the 11 years between 1998 and 2009. This situation cannot continue. The Humber area is the only city region in the country divided by a toll crossing with charges levied at such a rate. The Government have focused on city regions as being the most sensible economic units within which to develop Government policy. To have this bridge dividing our city region rather than bringing it together is madness, as I am sure that the Minister will recognise when he responds.
	It has to be said that the Humber area suffers from relatively low incomes and high levels of unemployment. To investigate the economic impact of the tolls, the four local authorities in the region—East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire—commissioned a report into their impact on businesses and jobs. Many people have said to me, "What is going to be different today when MPs from around the area make the case to the Minister?" I think that that report, entitled "Humber Bridge Tolls Impact Assessment", makes a great deal of difference. It was published late last year by Colin Buchanan Consultancy—the consultants who developed the methodology that was used to look at the economic impact of Crossrail. The methodology that they used in their report has been accepted by the Department for Transport, so it is not to be lightly dismissed.
	The report concluded that the abolition of, or a marked reduction in, the toll would improve the region's productivity, lead to greater employment opportunities, facilitate better networking between business, and increase local competition. Moreover, the bridge allows movement of employees, goods, knowledge and information, providing a deeper pool of resources from which the city region can draw.
	The report showed that with the abolition of the tolls, the total economy would benefit to the tune of £1.1 billion over the next 25 years. Even reducing the toll to £1 would produce a benefit of £580 million over the same period. The study further showed that the benefits of abolishing the tolls would be felt on both sides of the Humber. Hull would see a 3 per cent. increase in retail spend, adding an extra £45 million to the city economy, while the south bank would benefit from an increased labour catchment area making industrial development there much more appealing.
	At the moment, as the 2001 census showed, those living on the north bank of the Humber are overwhelmingly choosing to work in either Hull, the East Riding or, in many cases, in the city of York. They are not keen on travelling across the bridge twice a day to work in Grimsby or Cleethorpes, which is depriving the south bank of a huge labour resource. Moreover, in the current recession, unemployment is expected to increase markedly. The report makes it clear that for a significant number of unemployed people, the toll payments, rather than the time or distance, involved in commuting across the Humber are a barrier to seeking work across the Humber, and toll reduction could increase their scope for job search and job opportunities. What more could a Minister in this Government, at this time, in this current economic crisis, want to hear than such unequivocal, categorical advice on how to boost the local economy of that area?
	The caravan industry—a key local employer—has been badly hit, and thousands of jobs have been lost in East Yorkshire, not to mention North Lincolnshire, in recent months. Restricting the number of jobs that people can apply for, which the bridge toll essentially does, is not the best way to get them back into work. Business opportunities are also severely limited by the tolls. Businesses competing for contacts across the bridge find that they are sometimes unable to compete because of the cost of tolls and the exchange of ideas and networking are also severely limited.
	There is a real desire on both sides of the Humber to take this issue forward. More than 10,000 people recently signed a petition organised by the  Hull Daily Mail and  Scunthorpe Telegraph calling for the tolls to be axed or reduced to £1 for cars. More than 81,000 people signed a similar petition on the No. 10 website. When tens of thousands of people take the time to use a facility provided through the Prime Minister's office at No. 10, Ministers need to listen. There is no point in having these channels of communication if the Government are not prepared to listen to the voice of the people concerned.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is on to the interesting and important point that Ministers should listen. Is he aware that on a previous occasion when we were discussing local transport, in response to an intervention from me on this issue, the Minister agreed to meet an all-party delegation on the subject after the local inquiry had taken place? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister reaffirms his intention to meet an all-party delegation at the appropriate time to discuss the matter in further detail?

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that the Minister will be happy to do so later.
	The Humber Action Against Tolls campaign group, led by Jenny Walton, has been a tremendous influence, as have the region's MPs, together with local parliamentary candidates Andrew Percy in Brigg and Goole and Martin Vickers in Cleethorpes, and local council leaders. Earlier this month, the Humber bridge board acknowledged the strength of local feeling by announcing that it was considering asking the Government whether it could slash the cost of the tolls to £1 for a 12-month trial period. Under the proposal, the board would ask the Government to suspend or cancel interest payments for 12 months. That would allow it to charge just £1 for cars and two-thirds less for other vehicles to cover maintenance costs only. After the proposed trial year, a study of traffic levels would be carried out to discover the impact of reducing the tolls.

Ian Cawsey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the proposal from the bridge board should be taken very seriously? We have had the Buchanan report, which he has referred to, and we have had previous reports that have not always given a consistent picture. Sometimes they are played off against each other. If we had a trial period, there would no longer be any academic argument or any need for consultants' reports. We would be able to see the figures, and I think that the case would become completely indisputable.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will be aware that in the 1980s, when the bridge board's staff were involved in industrial action and the toll was suspended, there was a huge increase in the number of people crossing the bridge. I ask the Minister to take that on board. We are confident that a new toll holiday would achieve the same effect. Irrespective of what happens at the public inquiry next week, I urge the Minister to consider that proposal carefully.
	The Government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they place tremendous emphasis on city regions and their ability to further economic growth, and indeed they have said that they will do "whatever it takes"—I think that that is the right phrase, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to help this country fight the recession. They should not on the other hand continue to restrict economic growth in our city region by continuing to profit from the bridge debt.
	I call upon the Government to give two commitments. First, I ask them to commit to working with the Humber bridge board to agree a toll holiday on the bridge, reducing the toll to £1 as I have outlined. The debt is fairly notional, but if money has to be found from general funds to allow that, what better money to use than that which has been set aside to help fight the recession to see whether the idea works and put it to the test?

Shona McIsaac: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research undertaken on the south bank of the river about the possibility of reducing the toll or abolishing it altogether showed that an overwhelming number of people were in favour of paying a token toll, perhaps of £1? That is by far the quickest way to reduce the tolls, instead of going down a lengthy and protracted legislative route.

Graham Stuart: I am not sure that I was entirely aware of that fact, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has brought it to the House's attention. Whether it is outright abolition or a massive reduction of the toll, we desperately need action.
	The second thing that I ask the Government to do is establish a formal and broad inquiry into the wider issues of the bridge toll and the bridge debt, to identify ways in which the burden of the debt and the tolls that accompany it can be removed, to the benefit of the people and businesses of East Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire. I am sure that the Minister will want to do so, and I look forward to his response.

Paul Clark: At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) on securing this debate on an important issue. I ought also to take this opportunity to congratulate Members of all parties on their hard work, including the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and those who are sitting behind me—my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I congratulate them on the work that they have been doing on this matter, which is dear to their hearts, on behalf of their constituents.
	I shall set out a brief history of the development of the bridge, which is an important link between parts of the city region. Perhaps it can be seen as bringing it together rather than dividing it. The Humber bridge was promoted as a local road by the local authorities of Humberside. Approval for the construction of the suspension bridge was given by the then Transport Minister, Barbara Castle, although it was not until 1973 that work finally began. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that the running of the bridge is undertaken by its board, which is made up of the local authorities that promoted the project—Hull city council, East Riding of Yorkshire council, North Lincolnshire council and Lincolnshire county council. The board is made of up 22 members from those authorities. It financed the construction through loans from the Secretary of State for Transport and the Public Works Loans Board.
	As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, the bridge took longer and cost more to build than was expected. However, the amount of traffic was lower than forecast because the expected population growth on the south side of the Humber never materialised. The original cost was some £28 million, increasing to £98 million throughout the construction period, with price inflation caused especially by the ground conditions that were encountered. The Humber bridge board charges tolls to cover that debt.
	By the time the bridge was open to traffic in 1981, loans were charged at a rate of 11.62 per cent. compared with the Bank of England rate of some 15 per cent.; many of us remember those awful times. Every year since opening, the bridge has made an operating profit. However, initially, that was not sufficient to cover the loan charges.
	As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Government have done more to assist with the finances of the Humber bridge. The debt was restructured in 1998, when a reduced interest rate of 7.75 per cent. was set, with interest suspended on part of the total debt. The Humber bridge debt, which then amounted to £421 million—£359 million of which was owed to the Secretary of State, and £62 million to the Public Works Loan Board—was restructured. Indeed, we wrote off the £62 million that was owed to the Public Works Loan Board, and we suspended interest payments on £240 million of the debt that was owed to the Secretary of State. We also reduced the interest rate on the active part of the debt. The suspended debt was added back, beginning in the next financial year, in annual amounts, starting at £11 million and rising by 4 per cent. per annum to reintegrate it all. Those arrangements were set out in the 1998 loan agreement and the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996.
	In 2007, we again revised the interest rate on the debt to reflect more closely the rates that prevailed then, and to allow the Humber bridge board to repay the debt in the agreed loan period—until 2038—without recourse to levying a precept on taxpayers. Such recourse would mean that, ultimately, the taxpayers of Humberside would have to pay the debt, as set out in legislation. The interest rate was reduced to 4.25 per cent. until 2011, when the matter will be reviewed.
	The money saved through lower interest and the repackaging that we introduced in the latest development in 2007 is available to the Humber bridge board to repay capital and establish a maintenance fund. Under the remit of the agreement, the board is expected to manage the financial position until 2011, without recourse to the Department for Transport. That clearly sets out the steps that the Government have taken and the listening that we have done about the issues that must be faced. We have done that in dialogue with the Humber bridge board and through listening to hon. Members who have made representations about the financial position.
	The Secretary of State's role in relation to the bridge is restricted to approving or rejecting the proposed revision of tolls by the bridge board. As hon. Members know, there is an ongoing application to revise the tolls. That includes increasing toll charges from £2.70 to £2.90 for cars, from £4.90 to £5.30 for goods vehicles under 7.5 tonnes, and from £10.90 to £11.90 for goods vehicles that exceed 7.5 tonnes.
	The application is to be considered at a public inquiry. After listening and taking on board the representations made through several channels, including the No. 10 website, calling on the Government to cancel the Humber bridge debt and reduce the tolls, a public inquiry will begin on 3 March at the Willerby Manor hotel in East Yorkshire. Let me put it on record that the location of the inquiry is a matter for the board, which has made its decision, not the Government. The hon. Gentleman's website suggests that the Government refused to hold a public inquiry on the south side of the river. He knows that it is not a matter for the Government.

Graham Stuart: The Minister might be feeling combative, but let me share with him the fact that at least the Humber bridge board was listening and has agreed to waive the crossing costs of those who come from the south bank. I congratulate the board on listening to our campaign to make that happen.

Paul Clark: Absolutely. Indeed, I noted that the bridge board had listened, which shows not only that are the Government listening, but that the bridge board is listening too. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that point. The Secretary of State must await the inspector's recommendations before deciding whether to approve the proposed increase.

Elliot Morley: The bridge board itself has proposed a £1 toll, which would certainly cover the maintenance of the bridge. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about what the Government can and cannot do in relation to the inquiry, but the board's proposal strikes me as a perfectly reasonable suggestion, because it would deal with the argument about whether reducing the tolls would increase the income. The idea sounds to me like an experiment well worth conducting, which would produce results from which the Government could draw conclusions.

Paul Clark: I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. Let me make it clear that the issue before the public inquiry that will start next week is raising the tolls, by the amounts that I have specified. A number of hon. Members have referred to a £1 toll, but the Government have received no specifics about that proposal for us to consider. We have not been approached by the Humber bridge board on the specifics of the £1 proposal—and if we are thinking logically, we know that the public inquiry will look into the specifics of increasing the fees, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and I have set out.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has heard from all MPs from the area tonight, but it is important to get an idea of the time scale. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned the meeting that has been promised. Obviously we all appreciate that the Minister cannot act until the inquiry has reported and is out of the way, and that the Secretary of State has to make a decision, but when can we expect that decision, so that we can move forward?

Paul Clark: Obviously the timing of the report, written by the inspector, is a matter for the inspector, but my hon. Friend is right that we have to await that report, and the Secretary of State will then make a final decision whether to approve the proposed increases.
	It has been the policy of all Governments since 1945 that estuarial crossings should be paid for by the user rather than the taxpayer, because of the substantial savings covered. I hear the demands to write off debt and do away with tolls, but there are many competing demands, in terms of transport requirements, trains, bus subsidies and fare subsidies, that have to be met. I therefore urge hon. Members to await the outcome of the public inquiry. I am also willing to reaffirm my previous offer to have a meeting with all interested parties at a convenient time.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.